Fourth European Working

Conditions Survey
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey
 SALES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS
Publications for sale produced by the Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities are available from our sales agents throughout the world.

How do I set about obtaining a publication?

Once you have obtained the list of sales agents, contact the sales agent of your choice and
place your order.

How do I obtain the list of sales agents?

• Go to the Publications Office website: http://publications.eu.int/
• Or apply for a paper copy by fax (352) 2929 42758

EF/06/98/EN
 4
5 TJ-76-06-497-EN-C
Work occupies a central position in the day-to-day lives of most Europeans.
Working conditions such as working time, job content, pace of work, pay
levels and health and safety have a huge influence on individual well-being
and satisfaction. EU policymakers recognise that improving working
conditions is crucial to achieving a better quality of work, greater
productivity and increased employment – the Lisbon objectives. In this
context, the Foundation’s European Working Conditions Surveys,
conducted every five years, have been providing a valuable insight into key
aspects of work since 1990. This report analyses the findings of the fourth
European Working Conditions Survey, carried out in autumn 2005 across
31 countries, including the 27 EU Member States. Based on workers’
responses, it paints a broad and varied picture of the physical, intellectual
and psychological dimensions of work and its impact on personal fulfilment
and work-life balance.
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey
Authors: Agnès Parent-Thirion, Enrique Fernández Macías, John Hurley, Greet Vermeylen
Research institute: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin
Research managers: Agnès Parent-Thirion, Enrique Fernández Macías, John Hurley, Greet Vermeylen
Research project: European survey on working conditions
 Fourth European Working
Conditions Survey

Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Dublin 18, Ireland - Tel: (+353 1) 204 31 00 - Fax: (+353 1) 282 42 09 / 282 64 56
email: postmaster@eurofound.europa.eu - website: www.eurofound.europa.eu
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2007

ISBN 92-897-0974-X

© European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2007

For rights of translation or reproduction, applications should be made to the Director, European Foundation for the Improvement of
Living and Working Conditions, Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Dublin 18, Ireland.

The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions is an autonomous body of the European Union,
created to assist in the formulation of future policy on social and work-related matters. Further information can be found on the
Foundation website at www.eurofound.europa.eu

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

Wyattville Road
Loughlinstown
Dublin 18
Ireland
Telephone: (+353 1) 204 31 00
Fax: (+353 1) 282 42 09 / 282 64 56
Email: postmaster@eurofound.europa.eu
www.eurofound.europa.eu

Printed in Denmark

The paper used in this book is chlorine-free and comes from managed forests in northern Europe.
For every tree felled, at least one new tree is planted.
 Foreword
As the European Union continues to expand its borders, the differing norms in terms of both working and living
conditions across the continent become increasingly apparent. For Europe’s policymakers, such differences
present serious challenges as they seek to increase productivity, boost employment and improve quality of work.
In this context, understanding the conditions of work across the different EU Member States and other European
countries is of fundamental importance. Equally, tracking the changes in these areas of quality of work is key to
identifying trends which might influence future developments in this sphere.

In this report on the fourth European Working Conditions Survey, the Foundation provides a comprehensive
overview of the state of working conditions across 31 countries in Europe. Reflecting workers’ responses on a wide
range of issues such as work organisation, working time, equal opportunities, training, health and well-being and
job satisfaction, the report presents a very valuable insight into how European workers experience and assess their
working lives and working conditions. Moreover, the five-year cycle of the survey provides an effective means of
tracking the impact on working conditions of critical factors and events over a period of time.

As the European Union moves towards implementing the Lisbon objectives in an environment of increasing
global competition and demands, we trust this report will contribute to a better understanding of what is required
to shape Europe’s working environment into the future.

Jorma Karppinen Willy Buschak

Director Deputy Director

v
 Contents
Foreword v

Introduction 1

1 Context and structural data 3

2 Working time 17

3 Physical risk factors 29

4 Violence, harassment and discrimination in the workplace 35

5 Nature of work 41

6 Work organisation 51

7 Impact of work on health 61

8 Management and communication structures 67

9 Work and non-working life 71

10 Satisfaction with working conditions 77

11 Income and payment systems 83

12 Conclusions 91

Annex 1: Survey methodology 93

Annex 2: Calculation of income deciles 99

Annex 3: Statistical tables 101

Annex 4: Expert questionnaire development group 105

Annex 5: Network of fieldwork institutes 107

Annex 6: Survey questionnaire 109

vii
Abbreviations used in the report
EWCS European Working Conditions Survey
ISCO International Standard Classification of Occupations
LFS Labour Force Survey (Eurostat)
NACE Nomenclature générale des activités économiques dans les Communautés européennes (General
industrial classification of economic activities within the European Communities)
NUTS Nomenclature des unités territoriales statistiques (Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics)
ILO International Labour Organisation
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

Country codes
EU15 15 EU Member States prior to enlargement in 2004
NMS 10 new Member States that joined in 2004
EU25 15 EU Member States, plus the 10 NMS
EU27 25 EU Member States, plus the AC2
AC2 Two countries that joined the European Union in 2007: Bulgaria and Romania
CC2 Two candidate countries for membership of the EU: Croatia and Turkey
AT Austria LU Luxembourg
BE Belgium MT Malta
BG Bulgaria NL Netherlands
CY Cyprus PL Poland
CZ Czech Republic PT Portugal
DK Denmark RO Romania
EE Estonia SK Slovakia
FI Finland SI Slovenia
FR France ES Spain
DE Germany SE Sweden
EL Greece UK United Kingdom
HU Hungary
IE Ireland HR Croatia
IT Italy NO Norway
LV Latvia CH Switzerland
LT Lithuania TR Turkey

Country groups
Continental countries: AT, BE, DE, FR, LU
Ireland and the United Kingdom: IE, UK
Eastern European countries: CZ, EE, HU, LT, LV, PL, SI, SK
Southern European countries: CY, EL, ES, IT, MT, PT
Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands: DK, FI, NL, SE
Acceding countries: BG, RO
Candidate countries: HR, TR
EFTA (European Free Trade Association): CH, NO

Typology adapted from Esping-Andersen

viii

Promoting employment, and improving living and working
conditions, are amongst the primary objectives of the
European Union and its Member States, as stipulated in
Article 136 of the Treaty of Rome; in order to achieve this
aim, it is necessary to be able to monitor and assess
progress in this field. To measure working conditions, it is
important to consider a range of different aspects related to
job characteristics and employment conditions, health and
safety, work organisation, learning and development
opportunities and the balance between working and non-
working life.
Several tools attempt to address elements of quality of work
in Europe. Eurostat labour force surveys provide a regular
source of information on European labour markets;
however, they give little information on working conditions,
with the exception of some of the ad hoc modules. Statistics
are collected at European level on occupational diseases
(EODS) as well as on accidents at work (ESAW). They are
primarily based on harmonised national administrative
sources. Furthermore, while several countries carry out
surveys on the quality of work, the data from different
countries are not harmonised.
It was against this background and with the aim of
improving quality of work in Europe that the Foundation
launched its first survey on working conditions at the
beginning of the 1990s, to cover the then 12 Member States.
The survey has since been repeated in 1995/1996, to
include the EU15, and again in 2000 when it included
Norway. The 2000 survey was extended in 2001 to include
the 10 new Member States (the then acceding countries) as
well as Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey (at that time, the
candidate countries). In 2005, the fourth European Working
1
Introduction
Conditions Survey was carried out simultaneously in 31
countries: the EU25; the two acceding countries, Bulgaria
and Romania; the two candidate countries, Croatia and
Turkey; and Norway and Switzerland, which financed their
own participation in the survey.
The initial aims of the survey remain valid: identifying
priorities and measuring results; monitoring trends and
changes over the years; and highlighting the possible
contribution of the survey to policymaking. Over the 15
years in which it has run, the survey has provided a
complex and multifaceted portrait of work and working
conditions in an enlarged Europe. It has also stimulated
new research in order to better understand, interpret and
contextualise the data.
This new edition of the European Working Conditions
Survey has benefited from much valued inputs from
national and European experts on working conditions and
data collection through a series of meetings aimed at
reviewing the questionnaire. In parallel, a critical analysis
of the production of the data took place with a view to
improving and ensuring the quality of the data collected. In
addition, a qualitative post test is being carried out in five
Member States; it will contribute to better understanding
the influence of (national) cultures and institutional
frameworks.
This report gives a straightforward presentation of the key
results of the fourth European Working Conditions Survey.
More detailed statistical results are available on the
Foundation’s website and further in-depth analysis will
focus on some of the key policy issues in greater detail.
 Context and structural data
This chapter provides an overview of the employment
structure across the 31 countries that were included in the
fourth European Working Conditions Survey, using tables
and figures to illustrate the data. It gives a breakdown of
the workforce first by job-related characteristics, then looks
at employment status and contract and examines some
individual characteristics of European workers. Finally, the
chapter documents the nature and extent of gender
segregation in Europe. It aims to provide background
information on key characteristics of the European
workforce for the report as a whole. In the general overview
of structural factors in the context of the Europe-wide
labour market, all 31 countries are included in the analysis;
in the focus on gender segregation, the point of reference is
the EU27.
Wherever possible, the chapter outlines trends for the 15-
year period over which the survey has been running (at
least for those variables that have remained the same). For
each of these variables, conditions in the European Union
at the time of each survey are compared, based on the
number of Member States at that time. Therefore, the
observed cumulative changes reflect real changes in
working conditions over the period as well as the history of
European integration. (Unless otherwise stated, this chapter
consists of a description of the fourth European Working
Conditions Survey.1 Readers are advised to revert to the
Labour Force Survey to quantify precisely some groups in
the European workforce.)
Country groups
In the report, countries are presented in groups according to
an adapted Esping-Andersen2 typology, which has been
expanded to include all countries covered by the survey.
The need to use a typology comes from the practical
difficulties of analysing and reporting data for a large
number of countries. The reasoning behind the selection of
this typology was that these groups are familiar to European
policymakers; moreover, the typology appears to ‘fit’ at least
a superficial description of working conditions issues. The
countries that took part in the fourth European Working
Conditions Survey are divided into eight groups as follows:
• continental countries: AT, BE, DE, FR, LU3
• Ireland and the United Kingdom: IE, UK
1
• southern European countries: CY, EL, ES, IT, MT, PT
• Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands4: DK, FI,
NL, SE
• acceding countries: BG, RO5
• candidate countries: HR, TR
• EFTA6: CH, NO
This typology will be used throughout the report to highlight
differences between country groups.
Employment situation in Europe
At the time the survey was carried out, about 235 million
people were employed in the 31 countries included in the
survey. Table 1.1 presents key labour-market indicators for
each country.
These indicators highlight the following divergences
between countries:
• the high weighting of a number of countries compared to
the averages: when considering the EU27, 50% of
workers are concentrated in five countries – Germany
(17%), UK (14%), France (12%), Italy (11%) and Spain
(9%);
• the varying performances in employment and
unemployment rates: for example, there is a difference
of over 20 percentage points between Poland (52%) and
Denmark (over 75%) regarding employment rates; nine
countries covered by the survey have an unemployment
rate of more than 10%, while in nine other countries it is
below 6%;
• the different participation rates of women in the
workforce: there is a gender employment gap of less than
10 percentage points in eight countries; in seven other
countries, conversely, there is a gap of more than 20
percentage points;
• the different levels of use of temporary contracts;
• divergences in the use of part-time work: in seven of the
survey countries, more than one out of five workers
works part time; in 13 other countries, fewer than one in
10 works part time. In 12 countries, more than one
woman in three works part time, while in seven countries
the equivalent figure is less than one in 10.

• eastern European countries: CZ, EE, HU, LT, LV, PL, SI, These differences in labour market indicators are likely to
SK impact on working conditions. Along with legal, social,

1
Quality Report of the 4th European Working Conditions Survey. (http:www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/surveys/EWCS2005/qualityassurance.htm) documents
the coherence of variables from the survey with similar variables from other surveys.
2
Esping-Andersen, G., The three worlds of welfare capitalism, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1990.
3
An explanation of the country codes is given on page viii at the beginning of the report.
4
Due to increased similarities between Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, the latter has been added to the group.
5
Bulgaria and Romania became EU Member States on 1 January 2007.
6
European Free Trade Association

3
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Table 1.1: Key labour market indicators in Europe

Employment Employment Unemploy- Male Female Gender Temporary Part-time Part-time

(000s) rate, % ment employment employment employment contracts, work, work, % of
rate, % rate, % rate, % gap, percent- % of % of female
age points workforce workforce workforce

BE 4,134 60.6 8.4 67.9 53.3 14.6 8.6 21.5 40.5

DE 35,811 65.9 10.1 71.6 60.1 11.5 12.4 22.3 41.6
FR 24,048 62.9 9.5 68.5 57.3 11.2 12.6 16.9 30.3
LU 186 61.6 4.8 72.4 50.6 21.8 4.9 17.8 40.2
AT 3,745 68.1 5 75.2 61 14.2 8.7 19.7 38
EL 4,250 59.6 10.5 73.8 45.5 28.3 11.7 4.6 8.5
ES 18,181 61.8 10.6 74.2 49.2 25 32.9 8.7 17.7
IT 22,286 58 8.3 70.2 45.9 24.3 12 12.8 25.2
CY 332 68.8 5.2 79.8 58.6 21.2 12.6 8.5 13.4
MT 147 54.0 7 74.3 33.5 40.8 5.1 8.9 20.6
PT 4,821 67.8 7.5 73.8 62 11.8 19.4 11.5 16.5
DK 2,691 75.6 5.1 79.4 71.6 7.8 8.8 22.1 33.2
NL 8,022 73.1 4.6 80 66.1 13.9 15.1 45.8 74.6
FI 2,327 67.1 8 69 65.1 3.9 14.7 14.4 19.7
SE 4,195 71.5 6.2 73.1 69.9 3.2 15.2 24 36.7
IE 1,859 66.7 4.5 76 57.2 18.8 3.6 16.7 31.4
UK 27,614 71.8 4.7 78 65.7 12.3 6 25.3 42.9
CZ 4,672 64.5 8.2 72.8 56.1 16.7 9.1 4.8 8.3
EE 577 63.4 8.7 67.9 59.4 8.5 2.4 7.7 9.4
LT 1,423 61.4 10.7 64.9 58.1 6.8 5.8 8 10.1
LV 987 62.2 10.3 65.9 58.7 7.2 8.9 11.1 14.1
HU 3,884 57 6.3 63.3 51 12.3 7.1 4.7 6.4
PL 13,731 52.4 18.3 58.4 46.5 11.9 24 11.1 14.5
SI 911 64.9 6.6 70.1 59.5 10.6 17.7 8.8 10.3
SK 2,189 57.5 17.3 64 51.1 12.9 5.7 2.6 4.2
BG 2,871 54.1 12 58 50.3 7.7 6.9 1.9 2.2
RO 8,592 57.4 8.5 63.2 51.6 11.6 2 9.2 9.5
HR 1,333† 54.9 14.1 62.3 47.8 14.5 12.4 8.7 11.1
TR 21,791 43.7 10.3 73.5 26.5 47 No data 16.6* 30.8*
NO 2,226 75.3 3.9 78.1 72.5 5.6 10.1 29.4 45.7
CH 3,959 67.3 4.3 76 59.1 16.9 No data 31.7* 56.9

Source: EU data: Labour Force Survey, Statistics in Focus, 6/2005 (labour market trends for fourth quarter 2004); Turkey: national statistics, 2004; Switzerland:
Enquête suisse sur la population active (ESPA) Office fédéral de la statistique, 2004; Croatia: From the LFS 3rd quarter 2005 and the Croatian Statistical Office
website (†); * Foundation’s own calculations.

economic and cultural differences, they are worth keeping
in mind when reading and interpreting results.
Sectoral distribution
In the EU27, more than 66% of the workforce is employed
in the services industry (codes G to Q in the NACE
classification); 29% work in manufacturing (codes C to F)
and 5% work in agriculture (codes A and B). The biggest
employers in the EU27 are the manufacturing industry
(employing 19% of European workers), the wholesale and
retail trade (16%), as well as health (10%) and education
(7%).7
Since 1991, the trend towards declining employment in
agriculture and manufacturing has continued, as has the
trend of a corresponding increase in employment in

7
Data have been weighted against the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for sectors, occupations, age, sex and region.

4
 Context and structural data

Figure 1.1: Distribution of employment, by sector (%) Figure 1.2: Distribution of types of occupation, by
country (%)
CY

DE TR

FR RO

DK PL

IT PT

UK CY

LU HR

MT BG

SE ES

NO EL

PT LT

BE HU

NL LV

CH CZ

FI SK

SK MT

HU SI

AT EU27

HR IT

CZ IE

EU27 FR

SI AT

ES EE

IE UK

EE
DE

BG BE

LV NO

EL
DK

LT
CH

PL
SE

FI
RO
NL
TR
LU
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

agriculture wholesale and retail trade real estate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

manufacturing hotels and restaurants public administration

and defence high-skilled white-collar low-skilled white-collar
electricity, gas and water transport and communication education
high-skilled blue-collar low-skilled blue-collar
construction financial intermediation health

other services

services, particularly in real estate, and health and social
work. This trend has, however, halted slightly since the last
wave of enlargement in 2004.
Country differences in the distribution of sectoral
employment are important. In particular, the importance of
agriculture as an employer varies considerably between
countries: just 1% of the workforce is employed in agricul-
ture in Cyprus, while it employs more than 10% of the
workforce in Greece, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, and
more than 30% of the workforce in Romania and Turkey.
The specific nature of working conditions in agriculture is
likely to impact on general working conditions in these
countries: agricultural workers, by comparison with those
in other sectors, are particularly exposed to physical risks
and long and non-standard working hours; however, they
also have greater latitude for decision-making.8 Similarly,
manufacturing employs a higher percentage of the

8
See, for example, the Foundation study, Sectoral profiles of working conditions, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2002/75/en/1/ef0275en.pdf

5
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Figure 1.3: Occupational distribution of employment, States, high-skilled white-collar jobs now account for more
by country (%) than 40% of employment.

RO Figure 1.2 shows the distribution of workers in terms of

SI occupation type in the 31 countries covered by the survey.
PL
Figure 1.3 presents a detailed breakdown of the distribution
CZ
of employment by occupation. Across the EU27 as a whole,
HR
more than 50% of the workforce is employed in four
DE
occupational categories: professionals (15%), skilled
SE
workers (14%), technicians (13%), and service and sales
SK
workers (13%).
CH

BG
Company size and type
NO
Most workers in Europe work in small companies: 10% in
LU
one-person companies, 28% in micro enterprises (up to
CY
nine workers), 28% in small enterprises (between 10 and
ES
49 workers), 19% in medium-sized enterprises (between 50
FI
and 249 workers) and 15% in large enterprises (250
DK
employees and over).
HU

FR Nearly seven out of every 10 workers are employed in the

TR private sector; a quarter (25%) works in the public sector
EE and 6% work in joint private-public organisations or non-
MT governmental bodies. The lowest percentage of public-
PT sector employment is to be found in the acceding and
EU27 candidate countries, southern European and continental
NL
countries.
LT

LV Employment status
EL Increased flexibility in recent years has contributed to a
BE greater diversification of employment status, resulting in an
AT
Figure 1.4: Distribution of employment, by company
UK
size and country group (%)
IT

IE
IE, UK
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
BE, DE,
FR, LU, AT
senior managers professionals technicians
DK, NL,
agricultural and FI, SE
clerical workers service and sales workers fishery workers
CZ, EE,
LV, LT, HU,
skilled workers machine operators unskilled workers PL, SI, SK

EU27
workforce in the eastern European countries; depending on EL, ES, IT,
the types of manufacturing being carried out, this will also CY, MT, PT

Non-EU:
impact on general working conditions in these countries. CH+NO

CC2: TR, HR
Occupational distribution
The occupational structure of the employed population in AC2: BG, RO

the EU27 is composed of high-skilled white-collar 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

occupations (37%), low-skilled white-collar occupations one-person company micro enterprise (2–9 employees)
(25%), high-skilled blue-collar occupations (18%), and low-
small enterprise (10–49 employees) medium enterprise (50–249 employees)
skilled blue-collar occupations (20%).9 In nine Member
large enterprise (250+ employees)

9
The blue-collar/white-collar worker division is based on assigning ISCO 1-digit categories 1–5 to white collar and ISCO 1-digit categories 6–9 to blue collar
(armed forces excluded).

6
 Context and structural data

Figure 1.5: Non-standard employment in the European Figure 1.6: Employment status, by sex and age group,
Union, 1991–2005 (%) EU27 (%)

Men
15–29
Self-employment

Women
15–29

Men
Part-time work 30–49

Women
30–49

Temporary Men 50+

employment

Women
50+

Second job 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

self-employed without employees self-employed with employees

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 employed other

1991 (EU12) 1995 (EU15) 2000 (EU15)
Source: Labour Force Survey.
Note: ‘Temporary employment’ refers to workers on fixed-term contracts and
those on temporary agency contracts.
increase in non-permanent, non full-time forms of
employment.
Self-employment
The survey examined the extent of self-employment across
Europe, looking in detail at persons who are self-employed
on their own (11%), and those who are self-employed with
employees (5%). A higher proportion of men than women
are self-employed: of those who are self-employed without
employees, 63% are men while only 37% are women. The
equivalent percentages of men and women who are self-
employed and have employees are 73% and 28%
respectively.
The percentage of the workforce that is self-employed is
highest in the candidate countries (44% without employees,
and 8% with employees) and in the southern European
countries (20% and 3% respectively). It is lowest in the
Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands (7% without
employees, and 3% with employees). Across Europe, there
is a great variation in the nature of self-employed work,
encompassing entrepreneurs, economically dependant
workers and farmers.
In the EU27, self-employment is most concentrated in
agriculture (48% of workers in agriculture are self-employed
without employees and 7% are self-employed with
employees). It is also quite prevalent in construction, hotels
and restaurants, the wholesale and retail trade, real estate
and other services (averaging in these sectors around 14%
2005 (EU25) of self-employed without employees and between 5% and
10% of self-employed with employees).
Of those who are self-employed without employees, 61%
are agricultural and fishery workers. The typical self-
employed person is an older, male worker who is less skilled
than the rest of the workforce; however, this is less the case
when self-employed individuals working in the agriculture
sector are excluded.
Part-time work
17% of all jobs in the EU27 are part-time jobs and these are
mainly held by women: 29% work part time compared to
7% of men. The incidence of part-time work is most
prevalent in Ireland and the UK (28%) and in the
Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands (26%), and
least prevalent in eastern European countries (11%) and
southern European countries (13%) (see Figure 1.7). In
terms of individual countries, it is most common in the
Netherlands (where 34% of the workforce works part time)
and the UK (29%); overall the proportion of part-time
workers is above or just reaching the European average in
nine countries (Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Sweden and the UK). Part-time work is least
common in Cyprus, Latvia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Portugal
(less than 7%). Over half of all part-time workers (57%)
declare they are satisfied with their working hours, 22% say
they would prefer to work full time (the highest proportions
in this respect are reported in eastern European and
acceding countries) and 15% say they would like to work
longer hours.
In the EU, part-time work is associated more with
employees and with self-employed workers who have no

7
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Figure 1.7: Distribution of part-time and full-time work, Type of employment contract
by country group (%)
Indefinite-term contract
On average in the EU27, 78% of employees report holding
Non-EU: CH+NO
a contract of indefinite term; however, substantial
IE, UK differences exist between countries: twice as many
respondents in Luxembourg and Belgium (90% and 89%
DK, NL, FI, SE
respectively) hold indefinite contracts as in Cyprus and
EU27 Malta (46% and 50% respectively). In terms of country
groups, a higher-than-average proportion of respondents in
BE, DE, FR, LU, AT
continental countries (85%) hold indefinite contracts, while
CC2: TR, HR the lowest proportion is found in Ireland and the UK and
southern European countries: 68% and 70%, respectively.
AC2: BG, RO
In the candidate countries, the majority of employees have
EL, ES, IT, no employment contract (60%), while 28% of them have an
CY, MT, PT
indefinite-term contract.
CZ, EE, LV, LT,
HU, PL, SI, SK
Figure 1.9: Distribution of employment contracts, by
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
country group, EU27 (%)
part-time full-time

employees (17% of the latter work part time, compared to CC2: TR, HR

only 8% of self-employed workers with employees). Part-

IE, UK
time work is also more often associated with temporary
work: 25% of workers with a fixed-term contract and 37% of EL, ES, IT,
CY, MT, PT
temporary agency workers work part time; in contrast, only
CZ, EE, LV, LT,
14% of workers on indefinite-term contracts do so. HU, PL, SI, SK

As regards the sectoral distribution, part-time work is most EU27

prevalent in other services (30%) and health (28%), hotels

DK, NL, FI, SE
and restaurants (27%), and in education and the wholesale
and retail trade (24% and 23% respectively). A significant AC2: BG, RO

proportion of unskilled workers (29%), service and sales

BE, DE, FR, LU, AT
workers (28%), and clerical workers (24%) work part time;
part-time work is considerably less common for skilled Non-EU: CH+NO
workers (5%), machine operators (6%) and senior managers
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(7%).
indefinite-term contract fixed-term contract temporary employment
agency contract
As Figure 1.8 illustrates, part-time work for women
apprenticeship or other no contract other
increases with age, whereas part-time work is most common training scheme

among the younger (14%) and older (10%) age categories of

Note: Figures apply to employees only
men.
In general, workers with a higher level of education are
Figure 1.8: Distribution of part-time work, by age and more likely to hold an indefinite employment contract: 83%
sex, 31 European countries (%) of those with a third-level education hold an indefinite term
100 contract, as compared to 66% of those with only primary
90
80
level education. Slightly more men (79%) than women
70 (76%) hold an indefinite-term contract. Lower-than-average
60
50 percentages of unskilled workers and skilled agricultural
40
30 workers hold indefinite-term contracts (65% and 58%
20
10
respectively).
0
Men 15–29 Men 30–49 Men 50+ EU27 Women Women Women Fixed-term contract
15–29 30–49 50+
On average in the EU27, 12% of employees work under
part-time full-time
fixed-term contracts; in this respect, however, there are

8
 Context and structural data

notable differences between individual countries. Fixed-
term contracts are most prevalent in Poland (22% of
employees), Spain (21%), Bulgaria (19%) and the
Netherlands (16%).
Differences also exist between country groups: eastern
European countries have the highest proportion of fixed-
term contracts (17%) – 10 percentage points higher than the
continental and EFTA countries, which have the lowest
proportion (7%).
In the EU27, fixed-term contracts are most common in the
hotels and restaurants sector (21%), education (16%),
agriculture (15%), health and the wholesale and retail trade
(14% in both sectors). Across all age groups, a higher
proportion of women than men hold fixed-term contracts
(14% compared to 10%). Higher-than-average proportions
of unskilled workers and service and sales workers hold
fixed-term contracts (15% and 14% respectively).
majority (54%) hold an indefinite-term contract, 26% have
a fixed-term contract, 10% have no contract, 5% are
apprentices and 4% are temporary agency workers.
A high percentage of newly hired staff in companies (with
less than a year’s seniority) work under a temporary
employment contract: 40% of workers who have been in a
company for less than one year hold an indefinite-term
contract, 33% a fixed-term contract, 7% a temporary agency
contract, 3% are in an apprenticeship, while 15% have no
contract.10
Profile of the European worker
Educational level
The typical European worker is 40 years old and completed
full-time education at the age of 18. On average, 59% of
men finished their education before or at the age of 18
compared to 54% of women.

On average, the majority (58%) of workers on fixed-term
contracts have a contract of one year’s duration or less,
while 20% have a contract with no specified duration.
Ireland and the UK are, however, markedly different from
the average: 21% of workers on fixed-term contracts have
contracts of one year or less and 56% have contracts with
no specified duration.
Temporary-agency contract
On average, only 2% of employees hold temporary-agency
Major differences between country groups in this respect
can be seen, with workers in the Scandinavian countries
and Netherlands finishing their education at a later age
than workers in the other country groups. This is mirrored
by the higher proportion of workers in those countries that
completes third-level education.
Figure 1.10: Educational level, by country group (%)
CC2: TR, HR

contracts: such contracts are most commonly held by EL, ES, IT,
CY, MT, PT
employees in the hotels and restaurants sector and by
unskilled workers (4% for both groups). Apprenticeship and EU27
training contracts are very scarce, being held by only 1% of
AC2: BG, RO
employees.
Non-EU: CH+NO
Lack of employment contract
On average in the EU27, 7% of employees report having no BE, DE, FR, LU, AT
employment contract; Cyprus has the highest proportion of
IE, UK
such employees (42%), followed by Malta (39%), the UK
(15%) and Slovenia (10%). The sectors that have the most DK, NL, FI, SE
employees without contracts are agriculture (24%) and
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
hotels and restaurants (20%). In terms of occupational
categories, agricultural workers and unskilled workers primary or none (ISCED 0+1) lower-secondary (ISCED 2)

report the highest incidence of being without a contract upper-secondary (ISCED 3) post-secondary (ISCED 4) tertiary (ISCED 5+6)
(24% and 14% respectively).

Labour market entrants Job tenure

Most of the new entrants to the labour market (those who In the EU27, the average worker has spent 10 years in their
have spent fewer than four years in paid employment since current job. However, some sectors are characterised by
stopping full-time education) are employees (84%). The shorter-than-average periods of job stability: in the hotels

10
Among such employees, 2% were classified as ‘other’.

9
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

and restaurants sector, 25% of employees have spent only Figure 1.12: Age distribution, by sector, 31 European
one year or less in their job; similarly, in the wholesale and countries (%)
retail trade, real estate, construction, and electricity, gas and
Hotels and restaurants
water, 12%–13% of workers report just one year or less of
service, which is an indication of the sectors with the
Wholesale and retail trade
highest turnover.
Electricity, gas and water
Age
Figure 1.11 illustrates how demographic ageing is affecting
Construction
different country groups: countries such as the
Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands that have a
Real estate
higher proportion of older workers will see a substantial
proportion (above 15%) of their workforce retiring over the Other services
next 10 years.
Manufacturing
Differences also exist between the age profile of different
sectors, as Figure 1.12 illustrates. For example, in two
Agriculture
sectors – education and agriculture – the proportion of
workers aged 55 years or more is more than eight Transport and communication
percentage points higher than the proportion aged 24 years
Public administration
and defence

Figure 1.11: Age distribution of workers, by country Financial intermediation

group (%)
Health

Non-EU: CH+NO
Education

DK, NL, 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
FI, SE
24 years or younger 55 years or older

IE, UK
or under, an indication that these sectors will have to adapt
to current demographic pressures.
AC2: BG, RO In contrast, three sectors have a much higher proportion of
younger workers than older workers: the hotels and
restaurants sector, the wholesale and retail trade and
EL, ES, IT,
CY, MT, PT electricity, gas and water.

Nationality
EU27 Across all 31 European countries covered by the survey, 3%
of workers are not citizens of the country in which they
work: 2% comes from outside the EU, while 1% comes from
CZ, EE, LV, LT,
HU, PL, SI, SK another EU Member State.

Luxembourg has the highest proportion of non-national

BE, DE,
FR, LU, AT
workers (38%), followed by Estonia (17%), Switzerland and
Latvia (14%) and Spain (13%).

Most non-national workers are employed in other services

CC2: TR, HR
and construction (18% and 17%, respectively).
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Household characteristics
24 years or younger 25–39 years
Over half of all households (55%) have two wage-earners
40–54 years 55 years or older
and around a third (30%) have only one wage-earner. In a

10
 Context and structural data

small minority of households (15%), there are more than Figure 1.13: Gender breakdown of employment, by
two workers. country and employment status (%)

SK
Gender segregation
LV
On average in the EU27, more men than women are in paid
SI
employment (55% compared to 44%).11 However, in three
DE
countries – Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia – the proportion
HR
of women in the workforce is almost equal to that of men
(49%), while in five countries it is less than 40% (Turkey FR

27%, Malta 31, Spain 39, Italy 40 and Greece 38%). PT

CY
Gender segregation is the phenomenon of women being MT
under-represented in some occupational areas and over-
EL
represented in others (relative to their average
HU
representation in employment overall). A number of
AT
studies, including analyses of the previous editions of the
ES
European Working Conditions Survey have revealed that a
IE
high degree of gender segregation is a persistent feature of
IT
the structure of employment in Europe.12 Analysis of a
number of dimensions in the survey reveals the extent of LT

gender segregation in 2005. CZ

SE
Segregation can take place across various employment EE
variables: occupation, sector, economic status of the firm, EU27
employment status, employment contract and form (full-
FI
time/part-time work). Alongside the ‘horizontal’ segregation
LU
of women into different types of jobs is ‘vertical’ segregation:
BG
the under-representation of women in higher hierarchical
CH
positions, better paid jobs and jobs with a higher status.
DK

In recent years, part-time work – largely a female UK

phenomenon – has been increasing in Europe. For example, BE

between 2000 and 2005, 43% of newly created jobs have PL
been women’s part-time jobs, 15% men’s part-time jobs, RO
22% men’s full-time jobs and 20% women’s full-time jobs.13 NL
This development can be categorised as a success as more
NO
people, especially women, have been able to re-enter or
TR
remain in the labour market due to the availability of part-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
time work and hence have been better able to reconcile
men part time men full time women part time women full time
work and outside work responsibilities; however, it is
important to acknowledge that the rise in employment rates
does not necessarily result in an improvement in the quality Looking at all jobs together, and differentiating them by
of employment any more than it guarantees greater equality gender and part-time/full-time status (Figure 1.13), it is
between men and women.14 This is why when considering interesting to note that, on average, the majority of jobs
gender equality issues, it is important to distinguish (52%) are men’s full-time jobs, nearly a third of them (32%)
between male and female part- and full-time status.

11
For more information on participation rates, please refer to Figure 1.1.
12
See for example, Gender, jobs and working conditions in the European Union, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0249.htm or Gender
and working conditions in the European Union, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef9759.htm
13
Employment in Europe 2006, Figure 22, p. 40, European Commission, Brussels, 2006.
14
See, for example, Working-time preferences and work–life balances in the EU, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0342.htm, As time
goes by: A critical evaluation of the Foundation’s work on time http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2003/09/en/1/ef0309en.pdf or Part-time work in
Europe http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/reports/TN0403TR01/TN0403TR01.htm

11
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

are women’s full-time jobs, 13% are part-time women’s jobs Figure 1.14: Distribution of employment, by sector, sex
and 4% are men’s part-time. The proportion of men’s part- and part-time/full-time status, EU27 (%)
time jobs is above the EU27 average in Belgium, Bulgaria,
Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and the UK, Health

while the proportion of women’s part-time jobs is above Education

average in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland,
Other services
Luxembourg, the Netherlands (whose rate of 27% is higher
than the proportion of women’s full-time jobs in this country Wholesale and
retail trade
– 18%), Sweden and the UK (which at 23% is slightly less
Hotels and restaurants
than the proportion of women’s full-time jobs – 24%).
Financial
intermediation
Employment status
Real estate
There are similarities in the employment status of men and
Public administration
women: for example, a similar proportion (6%) of men and and defence

women hold second jobs, in which they spend Agriculture and fishing
approximately the same length of time (around 12 hours
Manufacturing
per week). For 3% of both men and women, working in a
second job is a regular activity, while for 4% it is occasional Transport and
communication
and/or seasonal. Electricity, gas
and water
The same percentage (7%) of male and female employees Construction
does not have any employment contract, and equal
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
percentages (2%) are temporary agency workers. Among
younger employees (those aged 29 years or younger), an men part time men full time women part time women full time

equal proportion (60%) of men and women work under an

indefinite-term contract.
However, there are some clear differences: for example, as
we have seen earlier, a higher proportion of men than
women are self-employed (the gender gap for the self-
employed without workers is three percentage points and
four percentage points for the self-employed with workers).
As noted earlier, a higher proportion of female than male
employees hold fixed-term contracts (14% compared with
10%), and part-time work is more common among women
(29% of women work part time, compared to 7% of men).
Sectoral segregation
Figure 1.14 illustrates the extent of sectoral segregation in
the EU27.
There are five sectors in which male workers predominate:
the construction sector (89% of male workers), electricity,
gas and water (80%), transport and communication (74%),
manufacturing (69%) and agriculture (64%).
In contrast, there are four sectors in which women prevail:
the health sector (79% of female workers), education (72%),
other services (61%) and the wholesale and retail trade
(55%). These sectors also have a higher-than-average
proportion of women’s part-time jobs (above 20% in all but
wholesale and retail, where the proportion of women’s part-
time jobs is 18%).
The extent of segregation is usually more pronounced at the
company level rather than at a higher aggregated level of
indicators, such as sector or occupation. It would be
interesting therefore to perform this type of analysis again at
a lower level of aggregation: for example, while in general
manufacturing is largely male-dominated, some sub-sectors
such as the manufacture of clothing and dressing and
dyeing of fur are female-dominated.
Sectoral concentration is the extent to which female (or
male) employment is concentrated in particular sectors.
Male and female employment is almost equally
concentrated in four sectors: 58% of men’s jobs are
concentrated in four sectors (manufacturing, wholesale and
retail, construction, and transport) and 57% of women’s
jobs are concentrated in four sectors (wholesale and retail,
manufacturing, health and other services).
Figure 1.15 illustrates the concentration of men’s and
women’s employment in the four sectors that employ the
most men: manufacturing, the wholesale and retail trade,
construction, and transport.
Figure 1.16, meanwhile, illustrates the concentration of
men’s and women’s employment in the four sectors that
employ the most women: manufacturing, the wholesale and
retail trade, health and other services.

12
 Context and structural data

Figure 1.15: Levels of men’s and women’s employment Figure 1.16: Levels of men’s and women’s employment
in sectors employing the most men, EU27 (%) in sectors employing the most women, EU27 (%)

Men Men

Women

Women
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

manufacturing health
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

manufacturing construction wholesale and retail trade other services

wholesale and retail trade transport and communication

Changes in the working conditions of a sector that has a Occupational segregation

disproportionately male or female workforce, will, naturally, Segregation (measured at 55% or more) can also be
have a disproportionate impact upon men or women. For observed within occupational categories. As Figure 1.17
example, changes in the construction sector will impact on indicates, men account for the majority of agricultural and
men to a much greater extent than on women. fishery workers, senior managers, machine operators,

Table 1.2 Categorisation of occupations by gender composition

Gender-segregated occupations Occupational subcategory ISCO code (2 digit)

Very male-dominated white-collar (80% or more None at ISCO-2 level
of workers are male)
Male-dominated white-collar (60%–80% male, Legislators and senior officials 11
20%–39% female) Corporate managers 12
Managers of small enterprises 13
Physical, mathematical and engineering science professionals 21
Physical and engineering science associate professionals 31
Mixed white-collar (40%–60% female) Other professionals 24
Other associate professionals 34
Female-dominated white-collar (61%–80% Life science and health professionals 22
female) Teaching professionals 23
Teaching associate professionals 33
Office clerks 41
Customer services clerks 42
Very female-dominated white-collar (80% female) Life science and health associate professionals 32
Very female-dominated blue-collar (80% or more None at ISCO-2 level
female)
Female-dominated blue-collar (61%–80% female) Models, salespersons and demonstrators 52
Sales and services elementary occupations 91
Mixed blue-collar (40%–60% female) Personal and protective services workers 51
Skilled agricultural and fishery workers 61
Male-dominated blue-collar (20%–39% female, Precision, handicraft, printing and related trades workers 73
60%–80% male) Other craft and related trades workers 74
Stationary-plant and related operators 81
Machine operators and assemblers 82
Agricultural, fishery and related labourers 92
Very male-dominated blue-collar (80% or Extraction and building trade workers 71
more male) Metal, machinery and related trade workers 72
Drivers and mobile-plant operators 83
Other labourers 93
Note: Armed forces are not included.

13
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Figure 1.17: Occupational segregation of women’s and skilled workers and members of the armed forces while
men’s employment, EU27 (%) women account for the majority of clerical workers, service
and sales workers and technicians. Only two occupational
Clerical workers categories – unskilled workers and professionals – are
Service and gender-balanced at this level of aggregation. However, at
sales workers
the sub-category level of these two groups the picture is less
Unskilled workers
balanced: among professionals, life science and health, and
Technicians teaching professionals are female-dominated while another
Professionals sub-category – physical, mathematical and engineering
Agricultural and science professionals – is male dominated. Similarly,
fishery workers
looking at the sub-levels of the unskilled workers category
Senior managers
of the elementary occupations, the cleaning, domestic
Machine operators service, refuse and street vendors’ occupations are all
Skilled workers female-dominated.

Armed forces Related to this occupational segregation is the phenomenon

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 of occupational concentration (the predominance of one
men part time men full time women part time women full time sex in a particular occupation or group of occupations).
Table 1.2 categorises occupations by status and gender
composition.15

Table 1.3 Distribution of men’s and women’s employment in gender-segregated occupations categories, EU27 (%)

Gender-segregated occupations Percentage of men Percentage of Percentage of total

employed women employed workforce employed

Male-dominated white-collar (60%–80% male, 20%–39% female) 10 4 14

Mixed white-collar (40%–60% female) 6 6 1316
Female-dominated white-collar (61%–80% female) 6 14 20
Very female-dominated white-collar (80% female or more) 0 2 2
Female-dominated blue-collar (61%–80% female) 5 10 15
Mixed blue-collar (40%–60% female) 5 5 10
Male-dominated blue-collar (20%–39% female, 60%–80% male) 7 3 10
Very male-dominated blue-collar (80% or more male) 15 1 16
All occupations 53 45 100

Table 1.4 Concentration of men’s employment in gender-segregated occupations, EU27 (%)

Men
Gender-segregated occupations Part-time Full-time All men

Male-dominated white-collar (20–39% female) 1 18 19

Mixed white-collar (40–60% female) 1 11 12
Female dominated white-collar (61–80% female) 1 10 11
Very female-dominated white-collar (80% female) 0 0.4 0.4
Female-dominated blue-collar (61–80% female) 2 8 10
Mixed blue-collar (40–60% female) 1 8 9
Male-dominated blue-collar (20–39% female) 1 11 12
Very male-dominated blue-collar (less than 20% female) 1 27 28
All 7 93 100

15
Model developed by Fagan and Burchell, see Gender, jobs and working conditions in the European Union,
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2002/49/en/1/ef0249en.pdf
16
Exact figures are 6.4 + 6.2, which is then rounded to 13.

14
 Context and structural data

Table 1.3 illustrates the extent to which most workers are
in occupations dominated by their own sex: less than a
quarter of the workforce (23%) is employed in gender-
balanced occupations (13% in mixed white-collar and 10%
in mixed blue-collar occupations). In 2000, when the same
analysis was carried out for the EU15, 17% of workers were
in mixed occupations.
Table 1.4 shows that 60% of men work in male-dominated
or very male-dominated occupations – primarily in blue-
collar occupations (40%). In contrast, only 21% of men
work in mixed occupations, and 21% in female-dominated
occupations.
As shown in Table 1.5, a slightly lower proportion of women
than men are working in occupations dominated by their
own sex: 57% of women are working in occupations that
are female-dominated or very female-dominated. However,
25% of women are working in mixed occupations (four
percentage points more than men), and the same
proportion of women as men are working in occupations
dominated by the opposite sex: 18% of women work in
male- and very male-dominated occupations, while 21% of
men work in female- and very female-dominated
occupations. It is interesting to note that part-time work is
most prevalent in female-dominated occupations and to a
lesser extent in mixed occupations.
Ownership and size of companies
Almost one third of women’s jobs are in the public sector:
hence, any changes in working conditions in this sector will
have a disproportionate impact upon women. Men are
slightly more likely to be employed in medium-sized and
large companies, whereas women are more likely to work in
micro and small companies.

Table 1.5 Concentration of women’s employment in gender-segregated occupations, EU27 (%)

Women
Gender-segregated occupations Part-time Full-time All women

Male-dominated white-collar (20%–39% female) 1 7 8

Mixed white-collar (40%–60% female) 3 11 14
Female-dominated white-collar (61%–80% female) 9 23 32
Very female-dominated white-collar (80% female) 1 3 4
Female-dominated blue-collar (61%–80 female) 9 13 21
Mixed blue-collar (40%–60% female) 4 7 11
Male-dominated blue-collar (20%–39% female) 1 6 7
Very male-dominated blue-collar (less than 20% female) 0.4 2 3
All 29 71 100

Table 1.6 Concentration of women’s and men’s employment, by ownership and size of organisation, EU27 (%)

Men Women
Part-time Full-time All Part-time Full-time All

Ownership Private-sector 5 70 75 18 44 62
Public-sector 1 19 20 8 23 31

Size of 1-person 1 9 10 3 7 10
organisation Micro-firm 2 24 26 9 20 29
Small enterprise 2 25 27 8 21 29
Medium-sized enterprise 1 19 20 4 14 18
Large enterprise 1 16 17 3 10 13

15

Working time is one of the key dimensions of working
conditions, a dimension which lies at the heart of the
employment relationship and which has an impact well
beyond work. This means that working time is not only a
key determinant of the conditions of work, but also of the
conditions of employment. The length, scheduling and
organisation of working hours are important determinants
of the quality of work. Beyond the workplace, working time
is obviously a crucial element in linking and balancing work
and life: the organisation of time at work has a huge impact
on the organisation of time outside work.
The fourth European Working Conditions Survey covers
various aspects of working time, highlighting the different
systems of working time organisation in different EU
countries. The data serve to support the discussion of key
issues, such as the impact of long working hours on working
conditions, the relationship between paid and unpaid work
and gender differences in relation to use of time. This
chapter gives an overview of working hours in Europe,
looking at time schedules in European workplaces and the
different systems of working time organisation, with a
special focus on their flexibility. It also explores working
time outside the main job: time spent in second jobs,
commuting times and unpaid working hours.
Working time 2
countries covered in the survey. The differences are
substantial, both in the average length of working hours and
in the range of working time in each country. The thick
green vertical line represents the average working time, the
box around it represents the interquartile range (i.e. 50% of
the workers fall within the categories of working hours
defined by the box) and the longer lines represent the 5th
and 95th percentiles. In the Netherlands, for example, the
average weekly working hours are 33; 50% of Dutch
workers work between 24 and 40 hours (the limits of the
box); 5% work more than 50 hours and 5% less than 10
hours (the extremes of the outward lines). Turkey has the
longest working hours and is also among the countries with
the greatest variation in hours worked. In most countries,
the average working hours are around the standard 40
hours per week with most workers following this pattern.
However, there are variations between countries, which
tend to follow a geographical pattern: eastern and southern
European countries have the longest hours, while central
and northern European countries (including Ireland and the
United Kingdom) have the shortest hours. The Netherlands,
Figure 2.2: Average weekly working hours, by country

Length of working time TR

RO
Weekly working hours EL

Since 1991, there has been a clear and consistent trend in BG

PL
the EU towards a reduction in paid working hours, a trend
HR
which only slowed in 2005 due to the impact of EU SK
enlargement in 2004, the new Member States having longer HU

average working hours. However, even in the NMS, the PT

SI
proportion of people working more than 41 hours per week
CZ
has decreased considerably since 2001, while the LV
proportion of people working shorter hours is gradually MT
increasing. LT
ES

Figure 2.2 shows average working hours (for both EE

CY
employees and self-employed) in 2005 in all the 31
AT
EU27
Figure 2.1: Evolution of weekly working hours,
IT
1990–2005 (%) LU
SE
EU12: 1990 IE
DE
EU15: 1995 FI
CH
EU15: 2000 BE
DK
EU25: 2005 FR
UK
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
NO

fewer than 20 21–34 35–38 39–41 42–48 more than 48 NL

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

17
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

with its very high incidence of part-time work (reflected in
Figure 2.2 by the large variation in working hours) has the
shortest average working hours.
Figure 2.3 shows the number of days worked per week in all
31 European countries (ranked by the percentage of people
working seven days a week). Turkey has a longer working
week than most other countries: almost 50% of Turkish
workers report working seven days a week, and almost 75%
work six or seven days. These figures probably reflect the
differences in sectoral composition of the Turkish economy
compared to the rest of Europe, with a much higher
proportion of workers in agriculture where working hours
are very long. The differences between countries are very
similar to the differences found in weekly working hours: a
higher incidence of long working weeks in southern and
eastern Europe and of short working weeks in northern and
central European countries.
But even if there are clear differences between countries, it
should be noted that there is a remarkable concentration of
Figure 2.3: Number of days worked per week,
by country (%)
TR
EL
RO
PL
BG
HR
working times around what we can call the ‘standard time
norm’ (40 hours and five days a week). With the exception
of Turkey and probably the Netherlands at the two
extremes, a substantial majority of workers in most
countries work around 40 hours and five days a week.
Long working hours
Figure 2.4 shows the proportion of people working more
than 48 hours a day in different countries (the reference for
long working hours in the fourth European Working
Conditions Survey is 48 hours or more). The country
differences follow the same trends as the figures for average
working hours, with the possible exception of Ireland,
which in terms of average working hours did not stand out
(it was one of the countries with shortest average hours) but
which has a sizeable proportion of people working very long
hours (almost 17% of the total working population).
Surprisingly, considering the importance of this debate in
the British context, the UK’s working hours are about
average. In fact, the UK stands out only in terms of the long
working hours of male full-time employees in comparison
with other EU15 countries.
Figure 2.4: Long working hours (>48h per week), by
country
TR
RO
EL
PL

LT BG
HU
HU
CZ
SI
SK
CZ
HR
AT LV
IE SI
PT IE
LV MT
MT ES
EU27 AT
ES LT
CH
SK
EU27
CY
BE
BE
PT
LU
IT
NO UK
EE CY
UK DK
DK EE
IT DE
SE
FI
NL
CH
LU
FR
FI
DE
FR
SE
NO
NL 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 self-employed employee

less than 5 5 6 7

18
 Working time

Figure 2.5 shows that long working hours are a Finally, Figure 2.7 shows the impact of working long hours
predominantly male phenomenon in Europe (see, however, on some other indicators of working conditions, such as
the discussion on unpaid working hours below), and one health and work–life balance. The first indicator shown –
which affects self-employed workers to a greater extent than the proportion of workers complaining that they rarely or
employees. The sectors most affected by long working hours never have enough time to get their job done – is higher for
(Figure 2.6) are agriculture, hotels and restaurants and those working very long hours. Of course, the causality here
construction (all with more than 20% of workers in this can go both ways, but it shows an interesting relationship
category); in terms of occupations, it is managers and between working time and flexibility that would merit
agricultural workers who most often work more than 48 further exploration. It is clear from the data that working
hours. very long hours may increase health and safety risks: those
who work more than 48 hours a week are more likely to
consider their health and safety at risk because of their work
Figure 2.5: Long working hours (>48h per week), by (twice as many as other workers), and that their job affects
gender and employment status, EU27 (%) their health.
50
But the greatest negative effect of long working hours is on
45
40
work–life balance: three times as many workers working
35 long hours compared to other workers feel that their
30 working hours do not fit in with their social and family
25
commitments. However, there is far less of a difference
20
between those workers working long hours and others in
15
10 terms of the indicator for satisfaction with working
5 conditions, probably because of the existence of possible
0 benefits from working long hours (also shown in Figure 2.7).
Men Women Employee Self-employed
Total EU27 Sex Employment status
For example, while working long hours does not improve
career prospects, it does pay: half of those working more
than 48 hours a week are in the top three income deciles.
Figure 2.6: Long working hours, by sector and
Also, working long hours may bring with it a limited degree
occupation, EU27 (%)
of flexibility: as Figure 2.7 shows, two thirds of those

Agriculture
Figure 2.7: Impact and effects of long working hours,
Manufacturing
EU27 (%)
Electricity, gas and water
Construction
Wholesale and retail trade
Rarely or never has enough
Sector of activity

Hotels and restaurants time to get the job done

Transport and communication
Health and safety at risk
Financial intermediation
because of work
Real estate
Impact

Public administration and defence Work affects health

Education
Health Working hours do not fit
Other services family or social commitments

Senior managers
Dissatisfied with
Professionals working conditions
Technicians
Clerical workers Job offers good
career prospects
Occupation

Service and sales workers

Compensations

Agricultural and fishery workers

Flexible starting
Skilled workers and finishing times
Machine operators
In the top three
Unskilled workers
income categories
Armed forces
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

self-employed employees 48 or less more than 48

19
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

working more than 48 hours are not constrained by fixed Figure 2.8: Evening and night work, by country
starting and finishing times, compared with only one third group (%)
of those working less than 48 hours a week.
DK, NL, FI, SE

Non-standard working hours

In terms of the percentage of EU workers with schedules IE, UK

outside the ’normal’ working day, the results do not point to

an increasing diversification of working hours, or a trend BE, DE, FR, LU, AT

towards a 24-hour society. If anything, the proportion of

people working outside normal working hours has slightly EL, ES, IT, CY, MT, PT

decreased since 1995.

CZ, EE, LV, LT, HU,
Figures 2.8 and 2.9 show the proportion of workers with PL, SI, SK
atypical schedules in the different EU country groups in
AC2: BG, RO
2005. Clearly, evening work is much more widespread than
night work, and the Netherlands and the Scandinavian
countries have the highest proportion of workers engaged in CC2: TR, HR

this type of work. But in fact, looking at the number of

evenings worked, it appears that evening work in Non-EU: CH+NO

Scandinavian countries is mainly ‘casual’ evening work,

probably related to the higher flexibility of working times in EU27

these countries (see Figure 2.8). In contrast, in southern

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
and eastern European countries, the proportion of people
working more than five evenings per month (that is, on a 1–5 evenings per month more than 5 evenings per month

less casual basis) is much higher. As for night work, it is 1–5 nights per month more than 5 nights per month

quite low in most countries except those in eastern Europe,

where 25% of the working population are affected.
Weekend work (see Figure 2.9) is most prevalent in the Figure 2.9: Saturday and Sunday work, by country
acceding and candidate countries (particularly Turkey), group (%)
probably because of the very high proportion of agricultural
workers in the Turkish workforce. Within the EU25, DK, NL, FI, SE

southern Europe has the highest proportion of workers

working every Saturday per month, while Sunday work is IE, UK

most prevalent in the Netherlands and the Scandinavian

countries, albeit only casual Sunday work (fewer than three BE, DE, FR, LU, AT

Sundays per month). In general, the continental countries

show a smaller proportion of workers with atypical work EL, ES, IT, CY, MT, PT
schedules.
CZ, EE, LV, LT, HU,
Finally, Figures 2.10 and 2.11 show the breakdown for PL, SI, SK
different sectors, for EU27 countries only. The sectors that
clearly stand out in terms of atypical work schedules are AC2: BG, RO

hotels and restaurants, agriculture, and transport and

communication. The wholesale and retail trade shows a CC2: TR, HR

very high proportion of work on Saturdays only. The sectors

in which there is consistently less work at atypical hours Non-EU: CH+NO

are construction and financial intermediation.

EU27
Organisation of working time
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Regularity of schedules 1–3 Saturdays per month 4 or 5 Saturdays per month
Figure 2.12 illustrates the incidence of regular working
1–3 Sundays per month 4 or 5 Sundays per month
hours in the different country groups. More than half of all

20
 Working time

Figure 2.10: Evening and night work, by sector, Figure 2.11: Saturday and Sunday work, by sector,
EU27 (%) EU27 (%)

Agriculture Agriculture

Manufacturing Manufacturing

Electricity, gas Electricity, gas

and water and water

Construction Construction

Wholesale and Wholesale and

retail trade retail trade

Hotels and restaurants Hotels and restaurants

Transport and Transport and

communication communication

Financial intermediation Financial intermediation

Real estate Real estate

Public administration Public administration

and defence and defence

Education Education

Health Health

Other services Other services

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1–3 Saturdays per month 4 or 5 Saturdays per month 1–5 evenings per month more than 5 evenings per month
1–3 Sundays per month 4 or 5 Sundays per month
1–5 nights per month more than 5 nights per month

workers (including employees and the self-employed) work Figure 2.12: Regularity of work schedules, by country
the same number of hours every day, with fixed starting and group (%)
finishing times, and the same number of days every week.
The differences between different groups of countries in DK, NL, FI, SE

these indicators are important: in the Netherlands and the

IE, UK
Scandinavian countries, work schedules tend to be more
flexible (only around 45% of workers work the same
BE, DE, FR, LU, AT
number of hours every day, and around 53% have fixed
starting and finishing times), whereas in southern European
EL, ES, IT, CY, MT, PT
countries, the proportion of workers with fixed schedules
and fixed working hours is higher than the average (around CZ, EE, LV, LT,
HU, PL, SI, SK
67% of southern European workers work the same number
of hours every day, and around 62% have fixed starting and AC2: BG, RO
finishing times). There is much more variation in the
number and regularity of hours per day than in the number CC2: TR, HR
of days per week, which are much more consistent (only
eastern European countries stand out in this respect with a Non-EU: CH+NO
slightly lower proportion of people working the same
number of days every week). EU27

Of course, in Figure 2.12 the emphasis is on regular work 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

schedules, but the figures can be reversed to reflect irregular same number of same number of fixed starting and
hours every day days every week finishing times
work schedules: around 50% of the European workers

21
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

covered in the survey do not work the same number of Figure 2.14: Incidence of shift work, by sector,
hours every day, around 40% do not have fixed starting and EU27 (%)
finishing working hours, and around 30% do not work the
same number of days every week. And this proportion is Agriculture
increasing, slowly but steadily: in 1995, 65% of EU workers
Manufacturing
had fixed work schedules, declining to 61% in 2005.
Electricity, gas and water
Shift work
Shift work has an important economic function in Construction

companies’ operations and a large impact on individual

Wholesale and retail trade
working conditions. Its economic importance is based on
companies’ dependence on the use of shift working in order Hotels and restaurants

to extend operating hours. This is usually a feature of

Transport and communication
companies where there are high fixed costs (typically the
case in manufacturing, which uses expensive machinery) Financial intermediation

or where the time of operation has to match the time of

Real estate
demand (typically in services).
Public administration
Figure 2.13 shows the proportion of workers involved in and defence

shift work in different groups of EU countries, and the type Education

of shift system in operation. There is a considerably higher
Health
proportion of shift work in eastern European and, albeit to
a lesser extent, southern European countries than in the Other services
other country groups. The differences between country
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
clusters in the use of shifts is strongly influenced by the
sectoral composition of the economy because, as Figure daily split shifts permanent shifts (morning, afternoon or night)

2.14 shows, there is an important variation in the use of alternating / rotating shifts other

shifts in different sectors. In health, about one third of

workers work shifts. In the hotels and restaurants, and
manufacturing and transport sectors, around one in every below 5% in agriculture, construction and financial
four workers is a shift worker. This proportion is around or intermediation.

Figure 2.13: Incidence of shift work, by country

Closer analysis of the survey data on shift work (Figure
group (%)
2.15) reveals that shift workers tend to have more standard
working hours than non-shift workers: almost 40% of those
DK, NL, FI, SE
working shifts in Europe work in the very limited range of 39
IE, UK to 41 hours per week (10% more than the rest of workers).
Also, the proportion of shift workers with very long or very
BE, DE,
FR, LU, AT short working hours is almost half that of non-shift workers.
EL, ES, IT,
CY, MT, PT
In terms of autonomy at work (the capacity to change the
CZ, EE, LV, LT,
HU, PL, SI, SK order of tasks, methods of work and rate of work), it is
evident that shift workers are much less autonomous than
AC2: BG, RO
other workers: the general level of shift workers without
CC2: TR, HR autonomy is around 50–60% compared to 30% for workers
not working shifts. This is confirmed by looking at who
Non-EU: CH+NO
decides how working times are organised: in the case of
shift work, in 70% of the cases it is entirely decided by the
EU27
company with no possibility for change. This is the case for
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
only 53% of other workers. Only 15% of shift workers can
daily split shifts permanent shifts (morning, really adapt working hours to their needs (with or without
afternoon or night)
some limits), compared to almost 40% in the case of non-
alternating / rotating shifts other
shift workers.

22
 Working time

Figure 2.15: Time organisation of shift work, EU27 (%) correlations, and it is not known whether they are the result
of the effect of other unobserved variables, but they clearly
Working less point to the negative impact of shift work on working
than 20 hours
Working hours

conditions in general.
Working 39–41 hours
Autonomy over working time schedule
Working more Figure 2.17 indicates the extent to which the company or
than 48 hours
the worker has control over the organisation of working time
order of tasks across groups of countries. This is only relevant for
choose or change…
Autonomy to

employees, because in the case of the self-employed, the

methods of work
worker has, by definition, more control over their
organisation of working time.1 It is interesting to note that
speed/rate of work
there is more variation between countries concerning
Set by the company with autonomy over working time than on most other indicators
no possibility for change
on working time. This implies that there are different models
arrangements
Working time

Can choose between several
fixed working schedules
Can adapt working
hours within certain limits
Working hours are entirely
determined by worker
0 10
shift work
Figure 2.16: Effects of shift work, EU27 (%)
50
in Europe concerning the worker’s ability to decide on the
organisation of working time, and not so much in respect
to the actual time spent working. In northern European
countries, workers can choose to adapt working time to
their needs to a large extent (around half of employees say
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 they can do so, with or without certain limits), which is in
non-shift work sharp contrast to southern and eastern European countries,
where more than 75% of employees have no possibility
whatsoever of adapting their work schedules, as they are
set by the company.

45

40 Figure 2.17: Autonomy over working time, by group of

35 countries (%)
30

25 DK, NL, FI, SE

20

15 IE, UK

10
BE, DE,
5 FR, LU, AT

0
EL, ES, IT,
Health and safety Work affects Dissatisfied with Work–life
CY, MT, PT
at risk because of work health working conditions balance conflict

CZ, EE, LV, LT,

shift work non-shift work
HU, PL, SI, SK

AC2: BG, RO
Finally, Figure 2.16 shows the relationship between shift
work and other indicators of working conditions. Shift work
CC2: TR, HR
seems to be correlated with a higher feeling of risk at work,
and with a higher level of negative health outcomes. In
Non-EU: CH+NO
terms of subjective well-being, there is also a clear
relationship between shift work and dissatisfaction with 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

working conditions, and an even stronger relationship set by the company with
no possibility for changes
between shift work and the perceived difficulty of balancing
possibility to adapt working
work and other commitments. However, these are only hours within certain limits
possibility to choose between
several fixed working schedules
working hours are entirely
determined by worker

1
However, while this is true at a theoretical level (being self-employed means being one’s own boss), the increasing prevalence of decentralisation and
subcontracting implies that that there is a significant proportion of so-called self-employed workers who are in fact still bound by company rules: former
employees who merely change their contractual situation from standard employment to a service contract, without gaining in autonomy.

23
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Composite working time
Most analyses of working time are based on a restrictive
(and not always explicit) definition. Working time is
measured in standard labour force surveys as time spent in
the main paid job. However, that does not necessarily
correspond to the time the individual spends on working.
There are three main ways in which this definition is too
restrictive.
• It does not include time spent in paid jobs other than the
main one. Although the proportion of people having a
second job is small, it is not negligible, and for the people
affected it makes a big difference.
• It does not include commuting time, that is, time spent
travelling to and from work. Although from the
perspective of the employer this is not working time, it is
definitely time devoted to work from the perspective of
the employee. It should, therefore, be considered when
discussing the length of time dedicated to work.
rather small in all countries (only in Norway is it more than
15%), the differences by country are important, as we can
see in Figure 2.18. The Scandinavian countries and the
Netherlands have a high proportion of workers with more
than one job and this proportion is also high in eastern
Europe. In the rest of Europe, multiple jobs are
comparatively rare.
Commuting time
Workers in all countries spend an average of around 40
minutes every day travelling to and from work – not an
Figure 2.18: Percentage of multiple-job holders by
country (%)
NO
DK
LV
EE

• Most importantly, it does not include time spent doing CZ

unpaid work. Unpaid work is clearly as important in SE

societal and economic terms as paid work, even if it is CH

not remunerated by the market. And obviously, from the FI

perspective of the individual, unpaid work (time spent EL

on household duties, and caring for children and adults) MT

still represents work, so it should be considered as such, SK
even if not placed in the same category as paid work. SI

NL
So far, the discussion on working time has been based on
PL
the definition of time spent in the main paid job. The fourth
HU
European Working Conditions Survey includes new
BE
indicators that explore working hours from a more
HR
integrated perspective, including these other working times.
AT
This section will first look at the three other types of working
IE
time and then present an aggregate working hours indicator.
LT
There is, however, one limitation in the fourth European EU27
Working Conditions Survey’s analysis of unpaid working ES
hours. Because of the strict definition of the respondent in DE
the survey, the sample only includes people who were in IT
paid employment in the reference week. It is evident that TR
unpaid work is not only performed by people in paid BG
employment: a very sizeable proportion of unpaid work is RO
carried out by people who do not have any paid job (such LU
as women at home). Therefore caution should be exercised PT
when interpreting the figures on unpaid working hours: in UK
this context, it means the unpaid working hours carried out CY
by people already in paid employment of some kind. FR

0 5 10 15 20
More than one job
yes, regular yes, occasional yes, seasonal other
On average in the 31 countries covered in the fourth
European Working Conditions Survey, less than 7% of the Note: Question asked ‘Besides your main paid job, do you have any other
workers have more than one job. Although the proportion is paid job?’

24
 Working time

insignificant amount of time, as it represents an increase of
8% in a standard eight-hour working day. Average
commuting time increases with working hours, as can be
seen in Figure 2.19. Only in the case of very long hours of
work (more than 48) is this positive relationship between
commuting and working hours broken, which quite
probably reflects the high proportion of agricultural workers
in this category (average commuting times of agricultural
workers are the lowest, along with those for hotel and
restaurant workers). Specifically, the commuting times of
part-time workers are substantially lower than the
commuting times of full-time workers. This is consistent
with numerous studies on the relationship between part-
time work, gender and commuting times, in which it is often
argued that the different household responsibilities of men
and women at home lead women to choose jobs with
shorter commuting times (in the same way that more
women work part time).
Unpaid working hours
The fourth European Working Conditions Survey did not
include a specific question concerning the number of
weekly hours spent on unpaid work. Respondents were
asked how many hours per day they spent on different
activities outside paid work and these were multiplied by
seven to compute the weekly total.2 While the
measurement of unpaid working hours is probably a good
values. The figures show the considerable differences
between women and men in the amount of time devoted to
unpaid work in all European countries. This is even more
significant given the fact that the data reflect only the
working population: if the data also took into account those
not in paid employment (including a majority of women at
home), the differences between the hours of unpaid work
of women and men would be even higher.
The results show clearly that working women spend more
time in unpaid work than do working men in all European
countries. However, there are important differences in the
gender distribution by country group: in the Netherlands
and the Scandinavian countries (and Switzerland), the
amount of unpaid work is more equal between men and
women than in southern European, continental and
candidate countries; eastern European countries fall
somewhere in between. There are also significant
differences between countries regarding the type of activity:
in the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries, workers
devote more time to childcare. In continental countries and
Figure 2.20: Hours spent caring for children and adults
per week, by country group and sex
Non-EU: CH+NO

approximation of the real values, the measurement is,

however, less precise than the measurement for paid CC2: TR, HR
working hours.

Figures 2.20 and 2.21 show the three elements of the AC2: BG, RO

unpaid working hours indicator – hours spent caring for

children and adults and hours spent on housework – by CZ, EE, LV,
LT, HU, PL, SI, SK
country group and gender. The total unpaid working hours
indicator is calculated by combining these three individual
EL, ES, IT,
CY, MT, PT

Figure 2.19: Average commuting time in minutes, by

weekly working hours, EU27 BE, DE, FR,
LU, AT
min
60

55 IE, UK
50

45
DK, NL, FI, SE
40
35
0 5 10 15 20
30
25 hours caring for adults (women) hours caring for children (women)

20 hours caring for adults (men) hours caring for children (men)
Less than 20 21–34 35–38 39–41 42–48 More than
48h/week

2
If the respondent replied ‘less than one hour per day every day’, he or she had to choose from several options such as ‘every day or every second day for less
than one hour’, ‘less than one hour per week’, etc.

25
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Figure 2.21: Hours spent on housework per week, by workers to balance their working life with responsibilities
country group and sex outside work. But as the figures show, the time spent on
unpaid work varies enormously between men and women.
DK, NL, FI, SE How do men and women spend the time they save when
IE, UK they work part time?

BE, DE, FR, LU, AT

Figure 2.24 shows the figures for combined working hours
EL, ES, IT, CY, MT, PT broken down by full-time and part-time work and sex across
CZ, EE, LV, LT,HU, PL, SI, SK
the EU27. Even if somewhat expected, these results are
quite striking. While male part-time workers dedicate even
AC2: BG, RO
less time to unpaid work than male full-time workers (7.2
CC2: TR, HR
hours), women working part time appear to use the time
Non-EU: CH+NO saved to carry out unpaid work (volume of hours only taken
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 into consideration, notwithstanding the voluntary character
of part-time work, its impact on salary and career
men women

Figure 2.22: Composite working hours indicator, by

Ireland and the UK, workers devote more time to
country
housework. Although fewer hours are spent caring for
adults than on other activities everywhere, the amount of RO
time devoted to caring for adults in southern European TR
countries is considerably greater than in most other NO
countries. The information contained in the variables of EL
unpaid working hours is very rich, and although it clearly SI
goes beyond the scope of this report to give further analysis, PL

the data need to be analysed and viewed in the context of HU

the different welfare systems, labour market situations, LV

cultural values attached to childrearing, technologies LU

assisting housework and general levels of gender inequality HR

in different countries. SK

BG
Composite working hours indicator EE

Figure 2.22 presents the combined working hours PT

breakdown for the 31 European countries covered in the NL

fourth European Working Conditions Survey. The composite CY

working hours indicator is made up of the figures for weekly IT

working hours, plus the average weekly working hours in EU27

jobs other than the main job, commuting time and the total UK

IE
weekly unpaid working hours. The countries have been
CZ
ranked from high to low and the contrast between weekly
CH
working hours and total composite working hours is
MT
considerable.
ES

Figure 2.23 shows the gender breakdown for combined BE

working hours by country group, indicating that there is a DK

huge difference in the working hours of women and men LT

when unpaid work is taken into consideration. While men FR

work longer hours than women in paid employment in all SE

countries, women in fact work more hours than men when AT

paid and unpaid working hours are combined. FI

DE
The composite working hours indicator gives an interesting 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
insight into part-time work. Part-time work is often paid working paid working commuting unpaid
hours main job hours second job time working hours
promoted as a family-friendly measure that can help

26
 Working time

Figure 2.23: Composite indicator of working time, by Figure 2.24: Composite working hours indicator, by full-
country group and sex (hours) time/part-time hours and sex, EU27

male
NL, FI, SE
DK,

female male

Part-time
male
female
IE, UK

female

male male
FR, LU, AT

Full-time
BE, DE,

female

female
male
CY, MT, PT
EL, ES, IT,

female 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

paid working paid working commuting unpaid

male
LT, HU, PL,
CZ, EE, LV,

hours main job hours second job time working hours

SI, SK

female

development, etc). On average, the unpaid work–paid work

CC2: TR, HR AC2: BG, RO

male
female ratio is 150% for female part-time workers whereas it stands
at 33% for male part-time workers. It is also important to
male note that when considering paid and unpaid work in
female
combination as measured by the European Working
Conditions Survey, female part-time workers work more
male
Non-EU:
CH+NO

female
hours in total per week than male full-time workers (56
against 54 hours). Also, the total working hours of women
male working full time are the longest, at more than 65 per week
EU27

female in total.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

paid working paid working commuting unpaid

hours main job hours second job time working hours

27

Despite a decline in the proportion of the workforce
employed in traditional, physically demanding sectors such
as manufacturing and agriculture, the fourth European
Working Conditions Survey reveals that some physical risks
are still prevalent. It also confirms findings from the
previous surveys that changes in levels of exposure to most
work-related physical risks tend to be small from one survey
to another. Such improvements as there have been in
exposure to some factors tend to be gradual, with
countervailing negative trends.1
One in five workers continues to be exposed to breathing
in smoke, powder or fumes and nearly one in two workers
reports working at least a quarter of the time in painful or
tiring positions. While 15 years is a relatively short period
in terms of evolving employment structure, it might have
been expected that the workplace changes that have taken
place during this time would generate improved working
conditions, especially in terms of a significant decrease in
the overall incidence of workplace physical risks.
This chapter examines the overall incidence of a number of
individual physical risk factors, including some that have
been included for the first time in the 2005 survey (e.g.
Figure 3.1: Exposure to physical risks,* 1990–2005 (%)
Vibrations
Noise
Low temperatures
Breathing smoke,
fumes, dust
Handling chemical
products / substances
Radiation
Painful, tiring positions
Repetitive hand or
arm movements
0 10 20 30 40
1990-EU12 1995-EU15 2000-EU15
* % exposed a quarter or more of the time
Note: No data is available for 1990 for some of the risks, as questions on
these were only introduced in later waves of the survey.
1
In this chapter, the term ‘physical risks’ refers to physical risks in the broadest sense, encompassing exposure to physical or ergonomic risks (e.g. work
involving painful or tiring positions), biological or chemical risks, as well as to ambient or environmental risk factors (e.g. noise, high/low temperatures).
Physical risk factors 3
exposure to infectious materials and to workplace tobacco
smoke). It provides a three-way grouping of risk factors
(ergonomic, biological/chemical and noise/temperatures). It
also looks at the extent to which different categories of
workers (by age group, sex and, especially, sector) are
affected by each. Finally, some of the consequences of
increased physical risk exposure in terms of individual
perceptions of job sustainability and work-related health
risks are explored.
As Figure 3.1 shows, trends for most physical risks have
remained within a narrow range across the four surveys
since 1990. The proportion of workers exposed to repetitive
hand or arm movements at least one quarter of the time has
actually increased over the last five years. This is the most
commonly cited physical risk, with 62% of the working
population reporting exposure.
There has been a small decrease in workers reporting more
or less permanent (all/nearly all of the time) exposure to
radiation, handling of chemical products or substances and
breathing of smoke, fumes, dust or powder. However,
exposure to vibrations and noise has increased since 2000.
New survey questions
Three new questions relating to physical work factors were
introduced in the 2005 survey, concerning exposure to
tobacco smoke and to infectious materials and the
proportion of working time spent standing or walking.
Exposure to tobacco smoke
One in five workers report being exposed to tobacco smoke
from other people at least a quarter of the time (20%,
dropping to 7% for those reporting being exposed all or
nearly all of the time). There was a significant difference
according to the sex of the respondent: 25% of male workers
report exposure at least a quarter of the time compared to
14% of female workers. There is also a wide variation from
country to country, showing the probable effect of national
legislation to restrict or ban smoking in the workplace, with
countries already having such legislation in place showing
the lowest levels.
Exposure to infectious materials
50 60 70
Nearly one in 10 workers (9%) reports being exposed to
2005-EU25 infectious materials (such as waste, bodily fluids and
laboratory materials) at their workplace at least a quarter
of the time, but more women (5%) than men (2%) report a
high level of such exposure (all or nearly all of the time),
29
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

attributable in large part to the higher proportion of women
working in the most exposed sectoral category, health and
social work (where 23% report themselves exposed all or
nearly all of the time).
Work involving standing or walking
Another new question introduced in 2005 is whether work
involves standing or walking. While standing or walking are
healthy activities in themselves, being subjected to these
activities for extended periods can predispose a worker to
physical risk, in particular musculoskeletal problems or
fatigue. At the other end of the scale, jobs – often office-
based – that are almost completely sedentary can lead to
increased health risks related to physical inactivity (for
example, high blood pressure and obesity).2
Gender dimension of physical risk factors
In general, more men than women report being subjected to
traditional physical work risks (such as noise and
vibrations), although there are exceptions to this rule. In
particular, ergonomic risks (for example repetitive hand or
arm movements, work involving painful or tiring positions)
tend to be more gender-neutral, especially in terms of the
proportion of workers exposed all or nearly all of the time.
For certain risks (exposure to infectious materials, jobs
involving lifting or moving people) prevalence is higher
amongst female workers, reflecting at least in part the
segregation of the sexes in specific sectors, notably the
health and social work sector.

The findings reveal that the degree of walking and standing

at work is overall quite high. Almost three quarters (73%) of Figure 3.2: Gender differences in exposure to physical
respondents carry out their work while standing or walking risk, with a male higher risk (%)
at least a quarter of the time while 43% report doing so all, 70

or nearly all of the time. The youngest age category (under 60

25 years of age) reports the highest levels of walking and
50
standing. More women (30%) than men (25%) report that
40
their work never, or almost never, involves standing.
30
The sector in which people work has a more decisive impact
20
than either sex or age on the extent to which work involves
standing or walking. At one end of the scale, those working 10

in financial intermediation – primarily desk and office- 0

Men Women Men Women Men Women
based jobs – report comparatively low levels. At the other Vibrations Noise Breathing in smoke,
end, four out of five workers in the hotel and restaurants fumes, powder, dust

sector report having to stand or walk in their main paid job

all / almost all time 1/4 of time and more
all, or almost all of the time.

Table 3.1: Physical risks exposure (% exposed quarter of time or more)

EU country rank
eme /
nts
mov and
l
posi / painfu
es

le

arm titive h
op
fum
s

ps
emp
ns

smo hing

mat ious
n
icals

g pe
ls
g

wal ing
tem

iatio

smo cco
ours

liftinng,
atio

tion

king
dlin

eria
ke,

ke
t

vy
ct

d
t

chem
e

e
s
a

i
High

Tirin
Brea

Stan
Mov

load
Low
Vibr

Nois

Rep
Han

Infe
Vap

Hea
Rad

Tob

Most 1 HU 34.2 PL 41.6 RO 45.0 EL 39.0 RO 29.1 LT 17.5 FI 23.3 MT 8.5 EL 37.2 RO 19.0 EL 66.2 ES 12.4 RO 45.1 LT 80.4 FI 79.6
exposed
2 EE 33.6 SI 40.1 EL 44.5 RO 38.6 SK 28.5 CZ 16.6 LT 19.9 SI 7.8 PT 29.0 FI 15.8 RO 61.5 SE 12.1 LT 41.9 PT 80.0 RO 77.2
3 PT 33.3 LT 40.0 CY 36.7 CY 32.7 LV 27.9 SK 16.3 SI 19.8 DE 6.8 LV 28.9 SE 14.5 CY 59.6 FI 11.4 LV 41.4 FI 79.4 EL 76.8
4 LT 31.8 EE 39.4 MT 32.5 LT 30.6 EE 27.5 ES 14.7 EL 18.2 SE 6.8 ES 28.2 MT 13.1 PT 57.1 RO 11.3 EL 41.3 RO 78.8 PT 74.2
5 LV 31.7 HU 38.2 RO 32.0 ES 28.6 EL 27.3 FI 14.4 PL 17.8 FI 6.2 DK 27.5 LT 13.1 HU 53.2 UK 11.1 PL 40.8 SE 77.6 LT 69.3
Least 24 DK 16.8 IT 23.9 LT 17.7 BE 16.4 IE 14.2 IE 6.3 LU 10.5 LU 3.3 FI 11.3 PL 6.2 IE 31.6 LV 4.5 DK 29.8 LU 64.7 LU 54.1
exposed
25 NL 15.9 UK 23.7 UK 16.4 AT 15.8 NL 13.7 SE 6.2 DK 10.2 BE 3.3 IT 9.1 CY 5.6 UK 30.6 IT 3.9 IT 28.5 CY 62.1 BE 52.4
26 UK 15.4 LU 23.4 IE 14.6 IE 15.3 DK 13.2 UK 6.0 CY 9.6 IT 3.1 SE 6.7 BG 5.0 CZ 30.0 BG 3.6 LU 25.6 CZ 59.6 IE 51.5
27 SE 15.1 NL 20.0 EE 14.0 IT 13.6 UK 11.7 DK 4.5 NL 8.7 UK 3.1 IE 5.8 IT 3.7 NL 24.8 PL 3.1 NL 22.0 NL 59.1 MT 51.1

2
See for example Expert Forecast on emerging physical risks related to OSH, http://riskobservatory.osha.eu.int/risks/forecasts/physical_risks/

30
 Physical risk factors

Measurement of exposure to combined physical risks
In order to identify those categories of workers with the
greatest exposure to a combination of different types of risk
factor, data indicating the average exposure of respondents
to a variety of related workplace physical risk factors can
be used.
As all the variables are measured using the same seven-
point scale (from 1 ‘all of the time’ to 7 ‘never’), the average
exposure on a scale of 1–7 can be calculated for three
composite variables representing exposure to different types
of risk: ergonomic, biological/chemical and noise/
temperatures. The greater the exposure to multiple risks and
Figure 3.3: Gender differences in exposure to physical
risk, with similar levels of risk (%)
70
60
50
40
the more intense the nature of the exposure to individual
risks, the higher an individual’s combined risk score will be.3
To facilitate interpretation, a standardised score (z-score)
was calculated across the distribution: 0 represents median
exposure, a positive score is greater than median exposure
and a negative score is less than median exposure,
measured in standard deviation units. In general, a positive
score indicates higher exposure to risk and can therefore be
considered negative from a working conditions or health
and safety perspective.
What emerges is that men, especially younger men, report
themselves more exposed than women to physical risk
factors at the workplace (see Figure 3.5). Exposure to
physical risk factors diminishes for men as they grow older
but even in the most senior of the three age categories (age
50+), men still have a slightly greater-than-average level of
exposure to the composite indicators for biological/chemical
and noise/temperatures. For women, the pattern is more

30
Figure 3.5: Exposure to combined physical risks, by sex
20
and age (mean z-score for composite risk indicators)
10

0
Men Women Men Women Men 15–29
Painful / tiring movements Repetitive hand / arm
movements

all / almost all time 1/4 of time and more Women 15–29

Figure 3.4: Gender differences in exposure to physical

risks, with a female higher risk (%) Men 30–49

70

12 Women 30–49

10

Men 50+
8

6
Women 50+
4

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

2

noise / temperatures ergonomic risks biological / chemical risks

0
Men Women Men Women
Handling infectious materials Lifting / moving people Note: +/- < 0.25 = small deviation from mean exposure
+/- 0.25-0.5 = substantial deviation from mean exposure
all / almost all time 1/4 of time and more
+/- >0.5 = very substantial deviation from mean exposure

3
Composite physical risk factors were constructed as follows: ergonomic risks = combined exposure to painful/tiring positions, vibrations, lifting or moving
people, carrying heavy loads, standing or walking, repetitive hand/arm movements (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.73); biological/chemical and radiation risks =
combined exposure to breathing in smoke, fumes, powder or dust, breathing in vapours such as solvents and thinners, handling chemical products, radiation,
handling infectious materials (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.72); ambient risks = combined exposure to noise, high temperatures and low temperatures (Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.71). Cronbach's alpha is a statistical measure that assesses the reliability of a rating summarising a group of survey answers which measure some
underlying factor (i.e. in this example, ergonomic risks, etc). Cronbach’s alpha scores of 0.7 or above are generally taken to indicate a reliable rating

31
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

stable in general with less than average exposure to each Figure 3.7: Exposure to biological and chemical risk
set of risk factors across all age groups. factors, by sector and type of occupation (average
standardised (z) score)

Occupational and sectoral dimension of physical Construction

risk factors Health

Blue-collar occupations
There is a strong correlation between working in specific
Manufacturing
occupations and sectors and exposure to physical risks, as
Electricity, gas and water
Figures 3.6–3.8 illustrate. By occupation, the most exposed
groups are craft and related trades workers, plant and Agriculture

machine operators and skilled agricultural and fishery Other services

workers – in this respect there is a clear differentiation in Transport and communication

terms of blue-collar and white-collar jobs. Public administration and defence

Wholesale and retail trade

In terms of sectors, the construction sector reports the
White-collar occupations
highest level of exposure to each set of risks, with the
Hotels and restaurants
agriculture and manufacturing sectors also reporting higher-
than-median exposure. The financial intermediation and Real estate

real estate sectors are those in which the lowest exposure is Education

reported for each set of risks. The hotel and restaurants and Financial intermediation
the health sectors are the only sectors in which there are -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
marked differences between levels of exposure to the three
sets of risks. Workers in the hotel and restaurants sector Note: +/- < 0.25 = small deviation from mean exposure
report high levels of ergonomic risk but relatively low levels +/- 0.25-0.5 = substantial deviation from mean exposure
of biological and chemical risk. In the health sector, workers +/- >0.5 = very substantial deviation from mean exposure

Figure 3.6: Type of exposure to ergonomic risk factors, Figure 3.8: Exposure to noise/temperatures, by sector
by sector and occupation (average standardised (z) and type of occupation (average standardised (z)
score) score)

Construction Construction

Agriculture Agriculture

Blue-collar occupations Blue-collar occupations

Hotels and restaurants Manufacturing

Manufacturing Electricity, gas and water

Health Hotels and restaurants

Transport and communication

Electricity, gas and water
Other services
Other services
Public administration and defence
Wholesale and retail trade
Wholesale and retail trade
Transport and communication
Education
White-collar occupations
White-collar occupations
Public administration and defence
Health
Education
Real estate
Real estate
Financial intermediation
Financial intermediation
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Note: +/- < 0.25 = small deviation from mean exposure Note: +/- < 0.25 = small deviation from mean exposure
+/- 0.25-0.5 = substantial deviation from mean exposure +/- 0.25-0.5 = substantial deviation from mean exposure
+/- >0.5 = very substantial deviation from mean exposure +/- >0.5 = very substantial deviation from mean exposure

32
 Physical risk factors

report substantial levels of biological and chemical risk, but Figure 3.10: Lack of information on workplace risks, by
very low levels of risks from noise/temperatures. company size (%)

18
Impact of increased exposure to physical risks
16

The survey sought to identify the correlation between 14

exposure to physical workplace risks and a worker’s 12

perception of health risks arising from work and also on 10

their perception of work sustainability. Persons who report 8

a high level of exposure to physical risk are more likely to 6

4
report that their health is at risk as a result of their work.
2
They also do not think they will be able to carry out their
0
current main job at the age of 60. Of the three sets of One-person Micro Small Medium Large
company enterprise enterprise enterprise enterprise
physical risks (ergonomic, biological/chemical and (2–9 (10–49 (50–249 (250+
employees) employees) employees) employees)
noise/temperatures), increased exposure to ergonomic risk
has the most significant impact on a respondent’s not very well informed not at all well informed
perception of their ability and/or willingness to carry out
their current job when they are 60 (Figure 3.9).

The most commonly reported physical risk at work is
repetitive hand or arm movements (62% exposed a quarter
of the time or more). The survey confirms a correlation
between the level of exposure to this risk and health
problems such as muscular problems in the shoulder, neck
or limbs, and backache. Repetitive hand/arm movement is
only one of several factors contributing to work-related
musculoskeletal problems and there is clearly a wide
variation in the nature of the relationship from one
individual to another. While the incidence of backache and
musculoskeletal problems has been found to rise with
increased exposure to repetitive movements, nonetheless
the majority of those workers with the greatest exposure (‘all
of the time’) do not report that they suffer from each of the
related health problems. On the other hand, the likely
presence of a ‘healthy worker effect’ may serve to reduce
the reported levels. In other words, workers for whom
repetitive movements have a major negative health impact
may no longer be in the workforce.
Information about workplace risks and use of
protective equipment
In addition to measuring exposure to a variety of physical
risk factors, the survey also asked respondents whether they
considered themselves to be well-informed about the health

Figure 3.11: Lack of information on workplace risks, by

Figure 3.9: Ability to do same job at the age of 60, by employment status and occupational type (%)
level of ergonomic risk exposure (z-score quartiles)4 (%) 25

100 20

80
15

60
10
40
5
20

0 0
High Medium-high Medium-low Low Self- Employee: Employee: Employee: White-collar Blue-collar
employed indefinite- temporary* no contract
term contract or other
I wouldn't want to no, I don't think so yes, I think so
Employment status Occupational type

not very well informed not at all well informed

Note: The survey question on work sustainability was, ‘Do you think you will
be able to do the same job you are doing now when you are 60 years old?’ * ie. fixed-term or temporary agency contract

4
Note: Quartiles are values that divide a sample into four equal parts while terciles divide a sample into three equal parts.

33
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey
and safety risks related to the performance of their job and
also whether their job necessitated the wearing of personal
protective equipment.
Workers in the new Member States declare themselves to
be better informed regarding workplace risks than their
EU15 counterparts: 15% of EU15 workers report
themselves not very well informed or not at all informed
regarding workplace risks, compared to 9% of NMS
workers. There has been a relatively significant increase
(five percentage points) in the proportion of EU15 workers
reporting themselves not well-informed over the last five
years.
34
There was an increase in the proportion of EU15 workers
wearing protective equipment in 2005 (32%) compared to
2000 (28%).
There is a significant correlation between company size and
contract status with level of information regarding
workplace risks. Workers in bigger organisations consider
themselves generally to be well informed about workplace
risks. Workers on indefinite contracts consider themselves
to be better informed about risks than those with a less
permanent attachment to their main job. Among the self-
employed, those working alone are twice as informed about
workplace risks (16%) as those with employees (8%).
 Violence, harassment and
discrimination in the workplace
National working conditions surveys in recent years have
highlighted a trend towards the increasing incidence of
psychological health problems cited as the basis for work-
related health problems.1 Significant factors contributing to
psychological ill-health and stress may include bullying or
harassment, violence or the threat of violence, as well as
various forms of discrimination. Research shows that, if left
unchecked, these forms of behaviour can have damaging
effects, not only on the individual well-being and
performance of the person targeted but also on the
collective psychosocial work environment and overall
organisational and economic performance.
The small percentages reported for all of these issues reveal
them to be the exception rather than the norm in the
working lives of Europeans. One in 20 workers reports
having been exposed to bullying and/or harassment in the
previous 12-month period and a similar proportion reports
having been exposed to violence;2 only about one worker
4
in 100 reports experiencing discrimination in relation to
religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. It should be
pointed out, however, that selection bias may lead to
underreporting for many of these categories. For instance, it
could be the case that many workers subjected to serious
instances of abuse (physical or psychological) or
discrimination are no longer working and hence do not
appear in the target population group ‘persons in
employment’.
It is also the case that certain forms of discrimination – for
example, those related to religion, ethnic origin, sexual
orientation and nationality – may only realistically apply to
very limited subgroups from the survey sample belonging
to specific minority groupings. The low overall incidence of
these forms of discrimination tends to conceal a much
higher incidence in the groups potentially affected.
Therefore, figures relating to discrimination should be
interpreted with caution.

Table 4.1: Incidence of violence, harassment and discrimination at work (%)

Over the past 12 months, have you or 1995 2000 2005 2005 2001 2005 2001 AC2 2005 AC2
have you not been personally subjected EU15 EU15 EU25 EU15 NMS NMS
at work to:

Threats of physical violence - - 6 6 - 5 - 4

Physical violence
from people within workplace 4* 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
from people outside workplace 4 4 5 3 4 3 3

Physical violence either from people 4 5 5 6 3 4 4 4

within or outside workplace **

Intimidation 8 9 - - 7 - 7 -

Bullying and/or harassment - - 5 5 - 4 - 4

Sexual discrimination 2 2 1 1 1 1 <1 1

Unwanted sexual attention 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

Age discrimination 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Nationality discrimination 1 1 1 1 <1 1 1 1

Ethnic discrimination 1 1 1 1 <1 1 1 1

Religious discrimination - - 1 1 - <1 - <1

Disability discrimination 1 1 <1 <1 1 <1 1 <1

Sexual orientation - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 <1

* The two sub-questions were combined in 1995.

** A combined variable based on those answering ‘Yes’ to either Q29b or Q29c

1
See, for example, the following reports from the Foundation: Trends of quality of work in the Netherlands, available at
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/surveys/NL0601SR01/NL0601SR01_7.htm and Work-related disorders in Sweden
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/surveys/SE0601SR01/SE0601SR01_3.htm
2
Where the term ‘physical violence’ or ‘violence’ is used without any qualification, it refers to situations where a worker
is exposed to violence from persons either inside or outside the workplace.

35
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey
In terms of trends, the incidence of various forms of
violence, harassment and discrimination at work has
remained broadly stable over the last 10 years, although
levels of exposure to violence appear to be increasing (from
4% to 6% over the period 1995–2005, in the EU15 only).
There have been changes in the phrasing of some
questions. An existing question on exposure to
‘intimidation’ has been amended to refer instead to
‘bullying/harassment’ to reflect a growing consensus of
usage based on these terms. A new sub-question on ‘threats
of physical violence’ introduced in the 2005 survey
indicated, not surprisingly, that a higher proportion of
workers were exposed to such threats than to actual acts of
violence.
Physical violence
Physical violence at work affects just a small proportion of
the overall workforce: one in 20 workers (5%) overall
reports having been personally subjected to violence either
from fellow workers or from others. Higher-than-average
levels are reported in the Netherlands (10%), France and
the UK (both 9%) and Ireland (8%).
Figure 4.1: Workers subjected to violence or threats of
violence, by country group (%)
BE, DE, FR, LU, AT
EL, ES, IT, CY, MT, PT
DK, NL, FI, SE
IE, UK
CZ, EE, LV, LT, HU, PL, SI, SK
AC2: BG, RO
CC2: TR, HR
Non-EU: CH+NO
EU27
0 2 4 6
threats of violence
3
See, for example, the Foundation report Violence, bullying and harassment in the workplace, available online at
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/reports/TN0406TR01/TN0406TR01.pdf
4
This sub-question was reworded in this fourth survey to reflect the prevailing usage of the terms ‘bullying’ and/or ‘harassment’ to describe certain types of
behaviour, in place of the term ‘intimidation’ which had been used in previous surveys. On the basis of the change in wording, it is inadvisable to draw any
conclusions on trends.
In general, there is a higher reported incidence of exposure
to violence, as well as to threats of violence, in the northern
European Member States and a lower reported incidence
in the southern Member States. There has been an increase
in the level of physical violence in the period 1995–2005
(from 4% to 6%) in the EU15, which is consistent with
findings at national level.3
More workers are affected by violence from people outside
the workplace (4%) than from fellow workers (2%) – levels
similar to those reported in 2000 (for the EU15). A slightly
higher percentage of workers (6%) reports being subjected
to threats of physical violence than to actual violent acts.
Neither sex nor employment nor contractual status appears
to have a significant impact on exposure to violence,
although there are substantial occupational and sectoral
variations. In contrast to standard workplace physical risk
exposures, white-collar workers are somewhat more
exposed than blue-collar workers to risks related to
violence, harassment and discrimination (6% compared to
4%).
Harassment
Two forms of harassment are examined in the survey:
bullying and/or harassment4 and sexual harassment
(‘unwanted sexual attention’).
Bullying and harassment
Around one in 20 (5%) workers reports having been
subjected to bullying and harassment in the workplace in
2005. However, this low average figure conceals wide
variations between countries, ranging from 17% in Finland
and 12% in the Netherlands to 2% in Italy and Bulgaria.
Such differences may reflect different levels of cultural
awareness of, and sensitivity to, the issue as much as
differences in actual incidence. Despite the change in
wording of this question, it is worth noting that Finland and
the Netherlands were also the two countries with the
highest reported incidence of ‘intimidation’ in the 2000
survey, at 15% and 14% respectively.
Women are more subject to bullying and harassment (6%)
than men (4%) and younger women are at greatest risk (8%
of those under 30 years old). Employees (6%) are more
susceptible than self-employed people (3%), while there are
8 10 12
no notable differences according to employment status.
violence at work
There are substantial differences in the incidence of
36
 Violence, harassment and discrimination in the workplace

Figure 4.2: Bullying and harassment, by sex and Figure 4.4: Violence and harassment, by company
country (%) size, EU27 (%)
9
FI
8
NL
7
LU
6
LT
5
EL
4
IE

BE 3

HR 2

MT 1

FR 0
Micro enterprise Small enterprise Medium enterprise Large enterprise
SI (2–9 employees) (10–49 employees) (50–249 employees) (250+ employees)

DK
physical violence from people in workplace physical violence from others
CH
bullying/harassment threats of physical violence
EE

UK Sexual harassment
EU27 The incidence of sexual harassment, or unwanted sexual
AT attention, is reported by fewer than 2% of respondents
TR overall but affects three times as many female workers as
NO male. Women in the Czech Republic (10%), Norway (7%),
RO
Turkey, Croatia, (6%), Denmark, Sweden, Lithuania and the
LV
UK (5%) are the most affected, while in some southern
DE
European countries the phenomenon is barely reported at
PT
all. Italy, Spain, Malta, Cyprus all have incidences of less
SK
than 1% overall.
SE

PL Figure 4.5: Sexual harassment, by sex and age,

CY EU27 (%)
HU 9

CZ 8

ES 7
IT 6
BG 5

0 5 10 15 20 25 4
men women 3

2
Figure 4.3: Bullying and harassment, by sex and age,
1
EU27 (%)
0
9 15–29 30–49 50+ average
8
7 men women
6
5 Again, the group most at risk is young women (under 30
4
3 years old), where the incidence rises to 6%. The rate is
2 higher for employed workers than for self-employed, and in
1
0
terms of contract status, women on fixed-term contracts or
15–29 30–49 50+ average
temporary agency workers report higher levels (5%) than
men women
those on indefinite contracts (2%).
bullying and harassment by company size: those working in
Incidence of violence and harassment by sector and
larger establishments (over 250 workers) report the highest
occupation
levels (8%). Sector is also an important variable, with
The survey reveals major sectoral differences in the
workers in the education, health and social work, and
incidence of violence and harassment. In many sectors
hotels and restaurants sectors reporting higher-than-average
where physical risks are high – agriculture, construction and
incidences.

37
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Figure 4.6: Level of violence and harassment, by sector, public administration and defence sectors, with lower but
EU27 (%) still significantly above average levels in the transport and
communication and hotel and restaurant sectors.
Electricity, gas and water
Given that the health and social work sector reports the
Manufacturing highest incidence of any sector, it is unsurprising therefore
that in occupational terms life science and health
Financial intermediation professionals and associate professionals (occupational
categories including, for example, doctors, dentists, nurses,
Real estate dental technicians, etc.) also report high levels of exposure
to violence. A high level of occupational skill or
Agriculture specialisation does not appear to offer protection in this
respect, as professionals are somewhat more affected than
Construction associate professionals.

Wholesale and retail trade

Table 4.2: Violence at work: the most exposed sectors
and occupations, EU27 (%)*
Other services
Sector Occupation
Health and social work 15.2 Life science and health 15.3
EU27 professionals
Land transport; transport 11.5 Personal and protective 14.6
Hotels and restaurants via pipelines services workers
Public administration 10.8 Life science and health 13.4
Transport and communication and defence associate professionals
Hotels and restaurants 8.1 Drivers and mobile 9.5
Public administration and defence plant operators
Education 7.9 Customer services clerks 8.2
Education
Other service activities 5.2 Teaching professionals 7.6

Health * Classification based on ISCO/NACE 2-digit codes; only sectors / occupations

with N>500 included.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

threats of violence violence bullying / unwanted

harassment
manufacturing – relatively low levels of violence and
harassment are reported. The reverse is also true: in sectors
where physical risks are low, high levels of exposure to
psychosocial risk factors are reported. Workers in the health
sector are eight times more likely to have experienced the
threat of physical violence than workers in the
manufacturing sector.
Significantly, these differences can be shown to exist across
all the sub-questions related to psychosocial risks: exposure
to physical violence, threat of violence, bullying and/or
harassment and unwanted sexual attention.
The risk of experiencing both violence and harassment is
greatest in the education and health sectors as well as the
sexual attention
If the figures above are further analysed in terms of the two
components of workplace violence – violence from fellow
workers and violence from people outside the workforce –
interesting differences show up both in the health and
teaching professions between occupational levels.
Professionals – those generally holding more senior
positions – have a high level of exposure to violence from
non-colleagues but comparatively low levels of exposure to
violence from colleagues.5 For associate professionals in
both professions, on the other hand, violence is as likely to
be at the hands of people from their workplace as from
people outside the workforce.
Overall, 6% of public sector workers report having
experienced bullying or harassment compared to 4% of
those working in the private sector. For each of the
questions relating to violence in the workplace, public

5
Professionals (ISCO-88 major group 2) include occupations whose main tasks require a high level of professional knowledge and experience and generally
education and training to university-degree level (e.g. medical doctors, secondary school teachers, etc). Technicians and associate professionals (ISCO-88 major
group 3) include occupations whose main tasks require technical knowledge and experience with some post-secondary training but generally not to university-
degree level (e.g. dental assistant). See the ILO’s ISCO web site for more information
(http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/isco88/index.htm).

38
 Violence, harassment and discrimination in the workplace

Figure 4.7: Exposure to violence in the health and Figure 4.9: Age discrimination by age, sex and country
education sectors, by occupational category, EU27 (%) group (%)
16

14 DK, NL, FI, SE

12

10
IE, UK
8

BE, DE, FR, LU, AT

4

0 EL, ES, IT, CY, MT, PT

Life science and Teaching Life science and Teaching
health professionals health associate associate
professionals professionals professionals

violence from people from your workplace violence from others CZ, EE, LV, LT,
HU, PL, SI, SK

sector workers are more than twice as likely to have been

AC2: BG, RO
subjected to threats of violence or actual violence as those
in the private sector.

One reason why public sector workers are more affected by CC2: TR, HR

violence or the threat of violence at the workplace may be

the higher level of interaction with people other than
colleagues. Around half of the public-sector workers Non-EU: CH+NO

surveyed (50%) reported that their job involves dealing

directly at least three quarters of the time with non-
EU27
colleagues (i.e. customers, students, patients, etc.)
compared to just 38% of private sector workers.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Discrimination
men 15–29 women 15–29 men 50+ women 50+
The survey assesses discrimination of different types: based
on sex, ethnic background, age, nationality, religion,
disability and sexual orientation. In general, levels of (although 2% of women and 4% of those under 30 years of
discrimination in the workplace are low – from less than 1% age are affected). Levels have remained stable for all
in relation to religion, ethnic background, sexual orientation questions between 2000 and 2005.
and disability to 1% in relation to nationality or sex
Only discrimination related to age is reported by more than
Figure 4.8: Age discrimination by sex and age, a marginal percentage of respondents (3%), varying from
EU27 (%) less than 1% in Spain to 6% in the Czech Republic.
Interestingly, more respondents under 30 years of age (5%)
12 report being subject to age discrimination than respondents
11
over 50 (4%), with women under 30 years of age reporting
10
9 the highest levels.
8
7 Looking at the incidence of age discrimination by country
6 group reveals interesting variations by sex and in age
5 groups most affected. In the Scandinavian countries and
4
the Netherlands, there is little differentiation by sex or age
3
2
in reported levels of age discrimination. In the UK and
1 Ireland and in the eastern European countries, higher
0 proportions of younger female workers are affected and this
15–29 30–49 50+ average
pattern is even more marked in the case of non-EU Member
men women States Norway and Switzerland.

39
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Impact of violence and harassment in the workplace Figure 4.10: Health problems associated with bullying
Those affected by violence or harassment in the workplace and harassment, EU27 (%)
tend to report higher levels of work-related ill-health. What 35
is especially noticeable from the survey is that the
30
proportion of workers reporting symptoms of psychosocial
factors, such as sleeping problems, anxiety and irritability, 25

is nearly four times greater among those who have 20

experienced violence or bullying and harassment as among
15
those who have not. The negative impacts are not
exclusively psychological or mental, however. It is also the 10

case that a higher incidence of physiological symptoms,

5
notably stomach ache, is reported by those subjected to
0
bullying and harassment. And a much higher proportion of Irritability Stomach ache Anxiety Sleeping problems
bullied workers suffer from multiple work-related health
problems: 40% report being affected by six or more of the 17 exposed not exposed

symptoms indicated in the questionnaire, compared to a

level of 15% in the working population as a whole. Figure 4.11 Proportion of workers absent and
Higher levels of stress are also reported, although the number of days absence due to work-related health
proportionate increase is not as great as for the four problems (%)
symptoms indicated in the figure below.

There is a similar correlation evident for the health impacts Bullying / harassment

of being affected by violence and threats of violence at

work. In each case, anxiety, irritability, sleeping problems Physical violence
and stomach ache are among the symptoms with the from within
workplace
highest proportionate increase in incidence if compared to
those not exposed. Physical violence
from people outside
Overall, 23% of workers report having been absent from workplace

work in the 12 months prior to the survey as a result of

health problems. Taking into account only those who Threats of
physical violence
attribute at least a proportion of such absences to work-
related causes (as distinct from general health problems
unrelated to work), this percentage falls to 7%. It is clear EU27
from Figure 4.11 that those who are exposed to
psychosocial risks are significantly more likely than the 0 5 10 15 20 25

average to report absence due to work-related ill health. 1–5 days 6–15 16–30 31–60 60+ days
This is notably the case for those workers subjected to
bullying and harassment; these workers also tend to have
longer durations of work absence and are over-represented violence and increased work-related sickness absence. It
in that category of workers who took 60 days off in the may be that these were just some among a number of
previous 12 months due to work-related ill health. Again, it contributing factors to the levels of absence attributable to
is important to point out that there is not necessarily a (unspecified) work-related health problems of individual
causal connection between incidences of bullying or respondents.

40

This chapter examines some of the changes taking place in
how work is performed: where work is carried out, the
increasing use of information technology at work, and the
possibilities for on-the-job learning.
Place of work
Previous editions of the European Working Conditions
Survey included indicators on telework and working from
home. In this fourth edition of the survey, two new
indicators have been introduced that facilitate the study of
Europeans’ place of work in greater detail: the proportion of
time spent working at company premises and the
proportion of time working in places other than at home or
at company premises (at clients’ premises, on the road etc.)
Figure 5.1 shows the distribution of these four indicators for
the whole of the EU27. As expected, company premises are
by far the most important place of work in Europe: almost
60% of EU workers work all or almost all the time at
company premises. It is interesting to note that a
considerable proportion of people never or almost never
work at company premises (almost 30%). Around 15% of
respondents work always or almost always outside the
home or company premises, and twice as many do so at
least a quarter of the time. The proportion of workers
working all or almost all of the time from home (with or
without a personal computer (PC)) is extremely low: less
than 3% of the EU working population. On the other hand,
around 12% of European workers report working at least a
quarter of the time from home without a PC and 8% at
home with a PC – a sizeable proportion. This suggests that,
although telework or working from home is not yet a real
alternative to working on company premises, it is used by
a substantial proportion of people as a complement to their
normal working arrangements.
Figure 5.1: Place of work, EU27 (%)
At company
premises
Outside home
and company
At home
(without PC)
Telework
(at home with PC)
0 10 20 30 40 50
all the time almost all the time
around 1/2 of the time around 1/4 of the time
Nature of work 5
The general distribution of the four indicators of place of
work shown in Figure 5.1 does not provide an overall
picture of the usual place of work of Europeans, because it
does not show, for example, whether those who never work
at company premises work from home or elsewhere. For
this reason, a single composite indicator of the usual place
of work has been created, aggregating the information
provided by each of the four individual indicators. This
composite indicator classifies workers according to their
answers in one of the following eight categories:
1) work only in company premises (51% of EU workers);
2) work both at company premises and outside (13%);
3) work only outside (10%);
4) work outside and from home (2%);
5) work only from home (2%);
6) work at company and from home (5%);
7) work a significant amount of time in all locations (4%);
8) do not work a significant amount of time in any of these
categories; it can be assumed that they work in some
other place (13%).
Figure 5.2 illustrates the usual places of work (using the
composite indicator) in the different sectors of the EU
economy. There is quite a big variation between different
sectors. In hotels and restaurants, manufacturing, health,
retail, financial intermediation and public administration,
the proportion of people working only at company premises
is much greater than for all the other categories (only the
category of ‘company and outside’ has a similar share). In
the other sectors, a substantial proportion of people work in
places other than company premises. Construction,
transport and utilities stand out as the sectors in which the
proportion of people working outside is highest. Education
has a high proportion of people working from home (around
one third works either mainly or significantly from home),
and, to a lesser extent, real estate and agriculture. Although
it is a marginal category in all sectors, the proportion of
people who are working everywhere (at company premises,
outside and from home, a significant amount of time) is
highest in real estate and financial intermediation. Finally,
the category of ‘other’ is quite large in agriculture and
fishing, which probably indicates that the indicators used to
measure place of work in the survey do not fit the
experience of workers in this sector very well.
The implications for workers of the different places of work
60 70 80 90 100
can be explored. Figure 5.3 shows the relationship between
around 3/4 of the time
the place of work and the time spent there, showing the
almost never never average working hours for workers in each of the place-of-
41
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Figure 5.2: Usual place of work, by sector, EU27 (%) Figure 5.3: Weekly working hours by usual place of
work, EU27
Hotels and restaurants

Manufacturing Company

Health

Wholesale and Company

retail trade and outside

Financial intermediation

Public administration
and defence Outside

EU27

Education Outside and

home
Electricity, gas
and water

Other services
Home

Real estate

Transport and
communication Company
and home
Agriculture

Construction
Everywhere
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
company company and outside outside outside and home

home company and home everywhere other

Other

work categories (represented by the thick line in the middle

of each of the boxes) as well as their dispersion (the box
represents the 50% of workers around the average, and the
vertical lines represent the 90% around the average). For
instance, the average weekly hours of those working at
company premises are 37.5; 50% of these workers work
from 35 to 40 hours, and 90% between 16 and 55 hours per
week. What the graph indicates is that those working at
company premises show much less variation in their weekly
working hours than all the others (the box and vertical lines
for them are much less spread out than for the other
categories). By contrast, those working from home (or also
at the company premises or outside) show a much greater
dispersion of working hours. This points to the fact that
working from home is by nature much more flexible time-
wise (in most cases, the organisation of the hours worked
from home are entirely determined by the worker), whereas
working at company premises implies a higher degree of
coordination with the work process and cooperation with
others, which often leads to lower flexibility and therefore
more standardisation of working hours.
Related to this, Figure 5.4 shows the levels of satisfaction
with work–life balance (measured by the question of how
well the respondent considers that working hours fit with
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
family and social commitments) of the workers in the
different places of work. Although the levels of satisfaction
with work–life balance are quite high across all categories,
there is a clear correlation between satisfaction with work–
life balance and usual place of work. Specifically, those
working from home are considerably more satisfied with
their work–life balance than all other workers and those
working outside and everywhere are least satisfied. This
suggests that not only working hours, but the place of work
has an impact on the work–life balance of workers.
Finally, Figure 5.5 shows the relationship between the place
of work and the perception of health and safety risks. There
is a clear and quite important correlation: those working
from home face the lowest risk levels and those working
outside face the highest, with the category of working at
company premises falling in between. A multivariate logistic
regression model (not shown here), controlling for sector
and occupation, confirms that working outside has a
negative impact on the perception of safety risks from work
while working from home has a positive impact.

42
 Nature of work

Figure 5.4: Work–life balance, by usual place of work, Figure 5.5: Perceived impact of work on health, by
EU27 (%) place of work, EU27 (%)
Everywhere
Home

Outside
Company
Company and home
and outside
Company
Other

Outside
and home Everywhere

Company
and home Other
Company
Outside
Home and home

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Company
and outside
very well well not very well not at all well
Outside
Note: Question asked ‘Do your working hours fit in with your family or social
commitments outside work?’ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Note: Respondents were asked ‘Does your work affect your health?’
Use of technology
Changes in the use of technology are one of the main
of radical change matched only by the first and second
determinants of changes in the process of work and,
industrial revolutions. The most salient aspect of this
consequently, of working conditions in the long term.
revolution is, of course, the use of information technology
According to many analysts, in the last couple of decades
(IT) in work processes in advanced economies.
the use of technologies at work is going through a process

Telework
In the fourth European Working Conditions Survey, there is a specific indicator on telework, which is defined as working from home
and with a PC. Figure 5.6 shows the distribution of telework for a number of variables. The overall proportion of people doing
telework is very low: slightly more than 5% of all EU workers do any telework at all, and less than 2% regularly work from home
and with a PC. Although generally very low everywhere, the proportion of people teleworking is highest in the Scandinavian
countries and the Netherlands and lowest in the southern European countries; it is also high in eastern European countries. Telework
is much more often carried out by self-employed persons than by employees, and men are slightly more likely to do telework than
women. In terms of sectors, three stand out with a considerably higher use of telework than all the rest: real estate, financial
intermediation and education. Only professional, managerial and technical occupations have more than 5% of workers working
sometimes or always from home and with a PC. Educational level (not shown here) is also strongly related to telework: the higher
the formal qualifications, the more likely workers are to telework.

Figure 5.6: Telework by sector and occupation, EU27 (%)

15

10

0
Agriculture

Electricity, gas
and water

Construction

Wholesale and retail trade

Hotels and restaurants

Transport and
communication

Financial intermediation

Real estate

Public administration
and defence

Education

Health

Other services

Senior managers

Professionals

Technicians

Clerical workers

Service and sales workers

Agricultural
and fishery workers

Skilled workers

Machine operators

Unskilled workers
Manufacturing

Sector Occupation
always sometimes

43
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

The survey has indicators on the use of IT and of more Figure 5.7: Use of technology at work, by country (%)
traditional types of technology, which can be used to
80
explore the use of both types of technology in European NL
SE
workplaces. Drawing from four questions in the survey, a 70
FI

Proportion whose work is determined by IT

DK
composite indicator has been derived, following closely the CH
LU BE
60 NO
approach of a previous report on technology and working UK
FR
DE
SI
IE AT
conditions carried out by the Foundation in 2002.1 The four 50
IT
MT HR EE
original variables are: use of PC at work, use of internet and CZ
40 SK
LTPT
email, work affected by vibrations from machinery and pace ES
LV
CY PL
of work determined by the automatic speed of a machine. 30 EL HU
BG
Those workers whose work implies a significant use of PC 20
TR
and internet are classified as ‘IT’ (37% of EU workers) and RO

those whose work is significantly determined by the use of 10

machinery are classified as ‘machinery’ (23%). There is a 0

mixed category (workers significantly affected by both, 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

around 10% in the whole of the EU) and a category of

workers not significantly determined by either IT or
machinery (30%).2
Figure 5.8: Use of technology at work, by sector,
Figure 5.7 represents the proportion of workers that fall into EU27 (%)
the IT and machinery category in each country.3 There is a Financial
intermediation
strong negative correlation at the country level between the
use of IT and the use of machine technologies: those Real estate

countries with a higher proportion of workers using IT are

Public administration
also the countries with less use of machinery, and vice and defence

versa. This may suggest a trade-off, an international Education

technological specialisation or simply the substitution of old
technologies by new – one of the characteristics of a Health

technological revolution (which would mean that those Electricity, gas

countries that are higher in the graph are more advanced and water

in this revolution). In any case, there is a clear EU27

differentiation by countries in the graph: all the
Wholesale and
Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands score very retail trade
highly in terms of IT use but have very little use of machine
Other services
technology, whereas most eastern and southern European
countries are the opposite. Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey Transport and
communication
score significantly lower than all the other countries in the
Manufacturing
use of IT at work, and relatively highly in the use of
machinery. The results seem to show that the composite Hotels and
restaurants
indicator of use of technology at work is indeed capturing
what it intends to capture, as the country differences are Construction

consistent with what could be expected, according to

Agriculture
previous literature and other similar indicators.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 5.8 shows the distribution of the use of IT and
machinery technologies by sector. The sectors in which the IT IT and machinery machinery

1
Dhondt, S. et al (2002): Work organisation, technology and working conditions, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0205.htm
2
Although this composite indicator of use of technologies is meaningful and consistent, it has to be interpreted with care. Because of the way the original
questions were constructed, the indicators for IT are ‘softer’ (they only measure whether people use computers and internet at work a significant amount of
time) than the indicators for machinery (which not only reflect the use of machinery, but also whether the worker is significantly affected or determined by
them). This means that the indicator probably slightly underestimates the use of machine technology, and, consequently, overestimates the proportion of
workers whose work is not significantly determined by their use. This need not be a weakness of the indicator, as long as one is aware of its limitations.
3
Those in the middle category (work determined by both) have been added to both.

44
 Nature of work

use of IT is above the EU average are financial Figure 5.10: Use of technology at work, by sex and
intermediation, real estate, public administration, age, EU27 (%)
education, health and utilities. In all these sectors, except
for utilities, the use of machinery is marginal. Sectors that 15–29

are below the EU average in the use of IT are retail, other

Men
30–49
services, transport, manufacturing, hotels and restaurants,
construction and agriculture. In manufacturing,
50+
construction and agriculture, the percentage of workers
whose work is substantially determined by the use of 15–29
machinery is very high (above 40% in all cases). At the

Women
same time, there is also a large group of workers in 30–49
agriculture (and in hotels and restaurants) whose work is
not determined significantly by any type of technology. 50+

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
There are also very substantial differences in the use of
technologies in the different occupational groups, as shown IT IT and machinery machinery

in Figure 5.9. Professionals, clerical workers, technicians

Figure 5.11: Use of technology at work, by level of
and managers use IT most widely, in all cases above 50%;
education, EU27 (%)
at the other end of the spectrum are skilled workers and
machine operators (who use machine technologies in more
Primary or lower
than 60% of cases). Agricultural workers, unskilled workers
and service workers show low levels of use of both types of Lower secondary
technology (with more than 50% of workers not making any
substantial use of technology at all).
Upper secondary

Figures 5.10 and 5.11 show the use of technology at work

Post secondary
by sex, age and educational level. The use of IT is slightly
higher for women than for men, and the use of machine
Tertiary
technologies is considerably higher for men than for women
of all ages. This reflects the sectoral composition of male
Post graduate
and female work: many of the sectors where men
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 5.9: Use of technology at work, by occupation,
IT IT and machinery machinery
EU27 (%)
predominate (notably manufacturing and agriculture) use
Professionals machine technologies extensively whereas women are
overrepresented in health, education, the public sector and
Clerical workers in clerical occupations, all characterised by greater use of
IT.
Technicians

The relationship between education and use of technologies

Senior managers
at work is very strong, as can be seen in Figure 5.11. The
Service and use of IT at work increases dramatically with the
sales workers
educational level, while both the use of machinery and not
Unskilled workers
using technology at all decrease substantially.

So, there are wide variations in the use of technology at

Skilled workers
work by country, sector, occupation, sex and education. In
Machine operators general, there is also a clear correlation between the use of
IT at work and better working conditions as reflected in a
Agricultural
and fishery workers
variety of indicators, and between the use of machinery and
poorer working conditions. Work determined by machinery
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
is characteristically more repetitive and monotonous, with
IT IT and machinery machinery less autonomy and is physically – and sometimes

45
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Figure 5.12: Occupational health risk, by use of Skills development and training
technology, EU27 (%)
A job that makes cognitive and intellectual demands is
more likely to provide opportunities for the worker to
IT develop their cognitive/intellectual skills; in this respect, the
level of learning demanded in a job and the degree of
intellectual challenge involved are indicators of the extent
IT and to which workers can develop their skills on the job.
machinery

Being in a position to avail of learning development

Machinery opportunities in a job also increases general employability.
Employability – a key concept in the current Lisbon strategy
– depends on a worker continually updating skills, both to
No technology progress in the current job, and to retain the flexibility to
find another job, hence ensuring greater employment
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 security. A number of indicators of employability were
stress backache
health and safety examined in the survey; these included the cognitive and
at risk because of work
intellectual dimensions of work and the possibilities for
professional development (including access to training).
Figure 5.13: Perception of likelihood of job
advancement, by use of technology, EU27 (%) Cognitive dimensions of work
Table 5.1 shows the distribution of cognitive demands of
IT work in Europe by sex, age, educational levels, occupation,
IT and
sector and use of technologies at work. Eight indicators
machinery have been selected from the fourth European Working
Conditions Survey that can provide an idea of the different
Machinery
aspects of cognitive demands from work: two of them are
No technology related to the use of quality standards in the work process
(meeting precise quality standards and assessing the quality
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
of your own work), three of them refer to the complexity of
strongly disagree disagree neither agree nor disagree work and the need to learn new things (solving unforeseen
agree strongly agree problems, carrying out complex tasks and learning new
things) and three of them reflect the opposite: whether work
Note: Question asked: ‘Do you agree with the following statement “My job
has low cognitive demands and is characterised by
offer good possibilities for career advancement”? ’
monotonous and repetitive tasks.

psychologically – more demanding. As Figure 5.12 shows, In general, most European workers consider their jobs
this has an impact on the occupational health risk of intellectually demanding in one way or another, although
workers. Work determined by machine technology results in almost half of them report their job as involving a significant
much higher levels of musculoskeletal disorders number of monotonous tasks. But as Table 5.1 shows, there
(represented in Figure 5.12 by backache) and considerably are quite substantial differences by sector, occupation, and
more exposure to workplace risks, according to the also by sociodemographic characteristics. In the table, apart
evaluation of workers themselves. The use of machine from the proportion of workers who report being affected by
technology is also (although not very strongly) correlated each of the indicators, the Cramer’s V coefficient is also
with higher levels of stress. displayed, to facilitate the interpretation of the table. This
coefficient, which ranges from 0 to 1, reflects the strength of
Figure 5.13 gives a final indication of the relationship
the relationship between each variable (e.g. education) and
between the different uses of technology at work, and
each indicator (e.g. complex tasks), so it can be used to
working and employment conditions. In this case, it can be
compare the relationship between cognitive demands and
seen that those working with IT technologies are
each of the variables shown in the table. For instance,
considerably more optimistic about the possibilities for
education is seen to have a stronger influence on the level
career progression offered by their job than workers whose
of cognitive demands from work than sex and age, because
work is determined by machine technology, or workers who
the Cramer’s V coefficients are higher for almost all
do not make substantial use of any technology.
indicators.

46
 Nature of work

Table 5.1: Cognitive demands of work, EU27 (%)

Meeting Assessing Solving Complex Learning new Monotonous Short Short
precise the quality unforeseen tasks things tasks repetitive repetitive
quality of own work problems on tasks of less tasks of less
standards your own than one than 10
minute minutes

EU27 Average 74.2 71.8 80.8 59.4 69.1 42.9 24.7 39.0
15–29 77.6 67.5 75.6 57.3 72.6 49.0 30.4 44.0
Men

30–49 78.5 74.7 86.0 67.2 71.3 40.9 22.5 35.1

Sex/age

50+ 75.5 75.4 85.4 63.9 65.8 37.3 21.1 36.8

15–29 66.7 62.6 72.7 50.3 69.0 48.0 30.8 44.8
Women

30–49 72.0 72.6 79.4 55.6 70.9 44.3 25.6 39.8

50+ 68.2 69.8 77.6 51.1 59.2 41.0 21.6 39.5
Cramer's V 0.10 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07
Primary or lower 71.0 62.8 69.1 36.5 46.3 61.1 34.7 48.4
Lower secondary 73.4 66.4 73.3 48.0 54.7 45.7 28.0 45.4
Education

Upper secondary 74.5 70.0 78.3 56.7 66.5 47.2 26.0 40.8
Post secondary 74.6 71.5 87.0 64.6 76.5 39.1 22.7 42.1
Tertiary 75.2 80.1 91.0 74.5 86.5 30.9 18.8 29.2
Postgraduate 69.4 88.10 93.9 87.1 87.8 28.2 16.8 21.3
Cramer's V 0.03 0.13 0.18 0.23 0.27 0.17 0.10 0.14
Senior managers 76.4 84.1 90.7 67.5 77.5 34.9 16.7 29.2
Professionals 75.4 80.8 90.7 78.9 89.6 28.2 17.4 27.2
Technicians 73.8 76.9 86.4 75.3 83.7 32.3 21.9 35.1
Clerical workers 67.9 64.3 80.0 57.5 71.5 45.2 25.6 39.4
Occupation

Service and sales workers 67.4 63.7 78.2 42.6 61.3 42.1 26.9 42.3
Agricultural and fishery 62.6 66.4 85.4 54.2 58.3 54.8 24.3 39.4
workers
Skilled workers 89.3 79.6 78.8 67.3 67.4 49.8 30.6 48.5
Machine operators 77.6 60.8 69.6 45.0 49.7 58.2 30.8 47.3
Unskilled workers 69.0 61.7 67.2 32.6 44.6 55.8 28.7 44.6
Cramer's V 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.32 0.32 0.21 0.12 0.15
Agriculture and fishing 63.2 66.0 81.8 50.9 58.0 54.2 26.4 38.0
Manufacturing 84.4 74.0 73.8 60.8 67.1 49.1 28.2 42.9
Electricity, gas and water 86.0 81.1 87.7 79.1 83.6 42.8 19.8 41.7
Construction 85.1 78.2 82.0 69.8 73.2 49.1 32.7 49.1
Wholesale and retail trade 67.1 65.5 79.3 46.4 58.7 41.8 26.5 41.1
Hotels and restaurants 79.4 68.1 77.2 37.0 53.6 49.0 37.3 49.4
Transport and communication 73.7 63.9 84.7 54.8 59.5 45.7 20.7 34.1
Sector

Financial intermediation 74.4 77.9 88.9 73.6 85.4 36.4 17.2 31.8
Real estate 72.7 76.0 84.8 70.0 76.3 36.4 17.2 30.2
Public administration 67.4 67.1 83.6 68.3 77.8 42.8 20.1 31.3
and defence
Education 68.5 78.2 86.1 61.8 84.4 31.6 15.3 25.3
Health 77.8 75.2 85.9 69.7 83.0 36.5 24.9 43.4
Other services 66.0 72.5 78.9 54.0 65.0 37.4 25.0 40.1
Cramer's V 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.21 0.13 0.12 0.14
IT 71.6 75.9 88.8 72.8 85.2 31.6 17.5 30.7
Technology at

IT and machinery 87.2 81.4 89.8 75.8 82.6 49.2 33.0 46.8
work

Machinery 85.1 73.2 75.3 57.3 60.5 57.8 33.5 50.5

Not technology-dominated 64.7 62.2 72.1 38.7 51.0 43.8 24.4 38.3
Cramer's V 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.33 0.21 0.15 0.16

47
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey
Although sex and age do not have a very strong relationship
with the levels of cognitive demands of work, it still should
be noted that women systematically report lower levels of
cognitive demands (and more monotonous and repetitive
tasks) than men, in all age groups. Education, on the other
hand, shows a consistent relationship with the indicators
of cognitive demands of work: as the educational level
increases, the reported levels of cognitive demands also
increase, and the proportion of workers doing monotonous
work decreases considerably. This suggests that there is a
relationship between the educational level and cognitive
demands of work, as expected.
Occupation has a more complex relationship with the
different indicators. The use of quality systems at work is
higher for skilled occupations and lower for clerical and
service occupations. Complex tasks and the requirement of
learning new things at work are more frequent in skilled,
professional and technical occupations, but occur rarely in
unskilled, semi-skilled and service occupations. As for
monotonous tasks, they tend to be less prevalent in higher
occupational groups.
By sectors, the picture is also complex. Quality systems are
more important in manufacturing, utilities and construction,
but play no particular role in retail, public administration,
education and other services. Complex tasks can be often
found in utilities, financial services and real estate, but
rarely in retail and hotels and restaurants. Learning new
things is most reported in utilities, financial services,
education and health, but not so much in retail, hotels and
restaurants and agriculture. Monotonous tasks are more
frequent in agriculture, manufacturing, construction and
hotels and restaurants, and less frequent in financial
services, real estate, education and health.
The main conclusion that can be drawn from looking at the
different cognitive demands by occupation and sector is
that there are important differences, with some sectors and
occupations showing fairly high cognitive demands and
others quite low ones (which are normally also correlated
with monotonous and repetitive work). Professionals,
technicians and skilled workers report higher levels of
cognitive demands, as do the sectors of financial
intermediation, education and health. Unskilled and semi-
skilled occupations and the retail, hotels and restaurants
and agriculture sectors show consistently lower levels of
reported cognitive demands, and higher levels of
monotonous and repetitive work.
4
See the Foundation report 15 years of working conditions in the EU: Charting the trends, at
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0685.htm
48
Finally, Table 5.1 also shows the relationship between the
use of technology at work and the different types of
cognitive demands. There is a consistent relationship
between both aspects of work. Complex tasks and learning
new things are much more frequent in jobs using IT than in
jobs using machinery, while the opposite applies to
monotonous tasks (more prevalent in machinery work). The
use of quality standards is on the other hand more frequent
in work determined by machinery, which is not surprising,
considering that such work is easier to standardise.
Professional development
It has already been mentioned that there seems to be a
relationship between the level of education and the
cognitive demands of work. But there should also be some
type of relationship between cognitive demands and
training at work. Table 5.2 shows how workers facing each
type of cognitive demand assess the match between their
skills and the duties of their current jobs. Those workers
who carry out complex tasks and learn new things at work
are much more likely to feel that they need further training,
whereas the opposite is the case for those carrying out
monotonous or repetitive tasks (who are actually more
likely to consider themselves overskilled for the work they
do). And, according to the training levels reported by
respondents, this has an impact on real training levels: in
general, all those workers who report high cognitive
demands are considerably more likely to have received
training in the 12 months prior to the survey, even when
they themselves paid for the training. The opposite is the
case for those who perform monotonous tasks: they are
slightly less likely to have received any training in the last
12 months.
Access to training
The levels and types of cognitive demands at work do not
only vary substantially by different educational levels and
job characteristics: they are also correlated with the
perception of skills match and the levels of training. But
data in Table 5.2 show that the levels of training are not
very high in general, even for those workers facing
cognitively demanding jobs. As Figure 5.14 shows, less than
30% of EU employees received any type of training at work
in 2005. The levels of training in the EU have not increased
in the last 10 years, since the European Working Conditions
Survey started measuring them4. But there are very big
country differences. As in previous editions of the survey,
northern European countries come at the top of the league:
more than 50% of workers received training at work in
 Nature of work

Figure 5.14: Percentage of employees who received Finland and Sweden. At the other end of the scale are most
training, by country (%) southern and eastern European countries, where the levels
FI of training are very low, hardly reaching 20% of employees
SE in Spain, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Romania and 10% of
CH
BE
employees in Bulgaria and Turkey.
NO
UK
IE Table 5.3 shows the main differences in training levels in
AT different sectors and occupations. The levels of training
SI
MT
provided by the employer are much higher in public
DK administration, finance, education and health; they are very
LU
low in hotels and restaurants, agriculture, construction, the
SK
NL
retail trade and manufacturing. By occupation, managers,
EE professionals and technicians receive much more training
PL
than the rest: the levels of training are particularly low in
CZ
EU27 skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled industrial and service
DE occupations. By employment and part-time status there are
HR
significant differences as well: part-time and temporary
FR
LT workers are less likely to have received training than their
LV full-time, permanent colleagues. Finally, both the amount
CY
of training received from the employer and paid for by the
IT
ES worker themselves increases steadily with the level of
EL education, ranging from 11% of workers with a primary
HU
PT
level of education to nearly 40% for workers with a tertiary
RO level of education.
BG
TR

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

paid by employer paid by worker

Table 5.2: Cognitive demands, skills match and training, EU27 (%)
Which of the following alternatives would best Have you undergone Have you undergone
describe your skills in your own work? training paid for or training paid for by
provided by your yourself in the last 12
I need further My duties I have skills to
employer in the last months?
training to cope correspond well cope with more
12 months?
well with my with my present demanding
duties skills duties Yes No Yes No
meeting precise quality No 10.5 55.0 34.5 23.0 77.0 4.2 95.8
standards Yes 14.1 51.2 34.7 31.3 68.7 5.0 95.0
assessing the quality No 11.4 56.1 32.5 20.5 79.5 3.5 96.5
of own work Yes 13.8 50.7 35.5 32.9 67.1 5.4 94.6
Does your main paid job involve...?

solving unforeseen No 11.2 58.8 30,0 16.7 83.3 2.4 97.6

problems on your own Yes 13.7 50.8 35.6 32.4 67.7 5.5 94.5
complex tasks No 7.7 55.9 36.5 18.7 81.3 3.6 96.4
Yes 16.9 49.9 33.2 36.3 63.7 5.8 94.2
learning new things No 4.7 57.4 37.9 11.7 88.3 2.4 97.6
Yes 16.9 50.1 32.9 36.8 63.2 6.0 94.0
monotonous tasks No 14.8 53.4 31.8 32.3 67.7 5.9 94.1
Yes 11.1 51.0 37.9 25.0 75.0 3.7 96.3
short repetitive tasks of No 13.4 53.1 33.5 30.2 69.8 5.0 95.0
less than one minute Yes 12.0 50.9 37.2 25.2 74.8 4.5 95.5
short repetitive tasks No 13.4 53.1 33.4 30.9 69.1 5.0 95.0
of less than 10 minutes Yes 12.7 51.3 36.0 26.1 73.8 4.7 95.3

49
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Table 5.3: Training by sector, occupation, type of contract, tenure and use of technology at work (%)

Sector Paid by employer Paid by worker

Agriculture 15.6 1.8
Manufacturing 24.1 2.7
Electricity, gas and water 34.5 4.4
Construction 20.0 3.7
Wholesale and retail trade 23.5 3.3
Hotels and restaurants 12.3 5.2
Transport and communication 29.9 5.1
Financial intermediation 43.7 4.2
Real estate 29.0 4.3
Public administration and defence 43.7 3.6
Education 42.2 13.0
Health 42.2 9.1
Other services 24.0 4.8
Occupation
Senior managers 49.9 7.3
Professionals 44.0 11.5
Technicians 39.2 5.6
Clerical workers 29.6 4.0
Service and sales workers 24.4 3.8
Agricultural and fishery workers 13.3 3.1
Skilled workers 17.9 2.4
Machine operators 17.0 1.9
Unskilled workers 16.2 2.0
Part-time status
Part-time 25.2 4.7
Full-time 30.0 4.9
Employment status
Permanent employee 30.8 4.7
Non-permanent employee 23.4 5.6

50
 Work organisation 6
Over the last 20 years, debates on the organisation of work Figure 6.1: Extent of autonomy in the workplace, by
in modern market economies have revolved around the country
contraposition of two types of work organisation – the DK
‘traditional industrial model’ versus ‘new forms of work SE

organisation’. The traditional industrial model is NO

characterised by a centralised, top-down organisation of NL

FI
work, with limited autonomy and rigid hierarchies; by
MT
contrast, new forms of work organisation emphasise flatter
CH
authority structures, more autonomy at all hierarchical LU
levels, and teamwork. LV
BE
In this chapter, the fourth European Working Conditions
EE
Survey will be used to study the main features of work FR
organisation in Europe. First, the levels of autonomy at IE
work, teamwork and task rotation will be analysed. The IT

main determinants of pace of work in European workplaces UK

LT
and the perceived levels of work intensity will then be
EU27
examined. Finally, an analytical model linking work
AT
organisation and job demands will be used to summarise
RO
the main findings of the chapter. TR
SI
Autonomy at work HU
PL
The fourth European Working Conditions Survey includes
HR
several indicators of autonomy at work. Table 6.1 outlines CY
the current levels of work autonomy in the EU27 for five of PT
these indicators.1 Three of these indicators have to do with DE

the worker’s freedom to exercise control over the work ES

CZ
process (the ability to choose or change the order of tasks,
SK
the methods of work and the speed or rate of work); the
EL
fourth refers to the influence the worker has over the choice BG
of working partners, and the fifth concerns the ability of the 0 1 2 3 4 5
worker to interrupt their work in order to take a short break,
Note: Figures apply to employees only.
when they wish.
when they wish: almost two thirds of European employees
Table 6.1: Extent of work autonomy, by employment
report control over these four indicators. A much lower
status (%)
proportion (32%) has any influence over the choice of
Self-employed Employees
working partners.
Able to choose or change 87 59
order of tasks
Able to choose or change 87 63 To facilitate the analysis of the degree of autonomy in
methods of work different countries and types of work, a composite indicator
Able to choose or change 89 65 was constructed, drawn from the five indicators shown in
speed of work
Table 6.1. and using the statistical measure Cronbach’s
Influence over choice 64 32
of working partners alpha to gauge reliability.2 As each of the five individual
Able to take a break 90 58 variables can only take a positive or negative value, the
when desired composite variable can be constructed by simply adding the
individual indicators.3 By way of illustration, an individual
Table 6.1 shows that a high proportion of workers enjoy with a score of four in the autonomy composite indicator
some control over the work process, and can take a break has control over four of the five indicators in Table 6.1.

1
Given the fact that the self-employed enjoy much higher levels of autonomy than employees, this section will focus mainly on employees.
2
The internal consistency of this group of variables is quite high, as shown by the Cronbach’s alpha of the five individual indicators: 0.72.
3
Adding the individual indicators implies an assumption that the individual variables in the composite indicator all have the same relative importance, i.e. they
are all equally weighted in the indicator.

51
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Table 6.2: Autonomy composite indicator, by sector, lowest levels of autonomy (1.84), followed by skilled
occupation and use of technology at work workers (2.35). Table 6.2 also indicates the different degrees
Sector of autonomy associated with different uses of technology: it
Agriculture 2.98 is interesting to note that the use of information technology
Manufacturing 2.40 in the workplace is clearly associated with a higher degree
Electricity, gas and water 3.40 of autonomy (3.36) in comparison with the use of machine
Construction 2.66 technology (2.11 ) or no technology at all (2.41).
Wholesale and retail trade 2.66
Hotels and restaurants 2.31 Functional flexibility and teamwork
Transport and communication 2.63
Financial intermediation 3.42 Another key difference between the ‘traditional’ and the
Real estate 3.34 ‘new’ forms of work organisation is the importance attached
Public administration and defence 3.01 in the latter forms to functional flexibility and teamwork.
Education 2.96
Health 2.79 Looking at the results of the fourth European Working
Other services 3.01 Conditions Survey, it seems that the levels of functional
Occupation flexibility and teamwork are quite high in European
Senior managers 4.02 workplaces: around 50% of employees in the EU27 rotate
Professionals 3.29 tasks with their colleagues, i.e. they are functionally flexible,
Technicians 3.15
and 60% do part or all their work in teams (as Table 6.3
shows).
Clerical workers 2.84
Service and sales workers 2.55
The survey questionnaire used follow-up questions to
Agricultural and fishery workers 3.23
assess the degree of autonomy associated with these two
Skilled workers 2.35
forms of work organisation. In the case of functional
Machine operators 1.84
flexibility, different skills are required in almost 78% of
Unskilled workers 2.43
cases; however, it was usually the boss or manager who
Technology in workplace
decided the division of tasks (in around 72% of cases),
Information technology only 3.36
while the team participated in the division of tasks in
Information technology and machinery 3.02 around 50% of cases. Therefore, it seems that the level of
Machinery only 2.11 autonomy associated with this indicator is relatively high.
No technology 2.41 In the case of teamwork, only around 50% of those
Note: Figures apply to employees only.
employees who work in teams decide themselves on the
The composite indicator allows for comparisons to be made division of tasks, and less than 30% can select the head of
in the level of autonomy in the workplace in different their team. So for teamwork, while it is prevalent as a form
European countries, as Figure 6.1 shows. Scandinavian of work organisation, the levels of autonomy and
countries and the Netherlands display the highest levels of decentralisation of decision-making in the teams is much
autonomy, with Denmark and Sweden having a score of lower than for task rotation.
around 3.6; southern and eastern European countries have
Figure 6.2: ‘Basic’ functional flexibility and teamwork,
the lowest levels, with Bulgaria having a score of just 2.1.
by country (%)
There are considerable sectoral and occupational 90

differences in levels of autonomy measured by the SI

Employees working in teams

80 EE
composite indicator, as is shown in Table 6.2. The highest FI UK
LV NO NL
MT IE
levels of autonomy are found in financial intermediation 70
CZ CH
RO SE BG
LT LU BE HR
(3.42), electricity, gas and water (3.40), and real estate SK DE
60 AT
PL CY EL DK
(3.34); the lowest levels are found in hotels and restaurants HU PT TR
and in manufacturing (2.31 and 2.40 respectively). By 50 FR IT
ES
occupation, the differences are even greater: senior 40
managers enjoy the highest levels of autonomy (4.02), 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Employees rotating tasks with colleagues
followed by professionals (3.29) and technicians (3.15); at
the other end of the scale, machine operators have the Note: Figures apply to employees only.

52
 Work organisation

Table 6.3 Autonomy in functional flexibility and in teamwork (%)

47.7
Employees whose job involves rotating tasks with colleagues
of total
tasks require different skills 77.8 37.1
manager decides division of tasks 71.6 34.1
team decides division of tasks 51.0 24.3
60.0
Employees whose job involves doing part or all work in teams
of total

team members decide division of tasks 52.1 31.3

team members select head of team 28.8 17.3

Looking at the national and sectoral distribution of these sectors where functional flexibility and teamwork are
indicators gives a more precise picture regarding their prevalent are electricity, gas and water, education, and
prevalence. Figure 6.2 illustrates the extent of task rotation construction. In contrast, the two indicators are least
and of teamwork in different European countries. Both prevalent in transport and communications, and in a
forms of work organisation are most prevalent in Slovenia, number of service sectors.
Netherlands and some Nordic countries, while they are
In terms of occupations, both indicators are most prevalent
least prevalent in France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal and
among professionals, managers and skilled workers, and
Spain.
are least prevalent among unskilled workers, machine
As mentioned above, it is important to qualify the general operators and clerical workers.
indicators of functional flexibility and teamwork with the
The results show that there is a wide variation in the use of
answers given to the follow-up questions, which indicate
functional flexibility and teamwork across sectors and
the prevalence of advanced forms of both types of work
occupations. In some cases, the presence or absence of
organisation. As Figure 6.3 shows, these ‘advanced’ forms
these forms of work organisation may not necessarily reflect
of work organisation are considerably more prevalent in the
forms of work organisation but may instead reflect the
northern European countries, while they are least prevalent
nature of the work processes themselves. In construction,
in the southern and eastern European countries.
for instance, the fact that work is organised in teams and
entails high levels of task rotation is probably due to the
Figure 6.3: ‘Advanced’ functional flexibility and nature of construction work itself: top-down coordination
teamwork, by country (%) of work is difficult, and most work can best be carried out
60
SE
by groups of skilled labourers working together.
FI
NO
50
Employees in autonomous teams

LV DK
SI UK NL
40 CH
MT IE Figure 6.4: ‘Basic’ functional flexibility and teamwork,
DE EE AT HR
BE
30 LU CZ by sector and occupation (%)
PL LT RO BG
HU IT SK
20 FR 80
PT TR EL
ES Senior managers
CY
Health
10
Construction
70
Employees working in teams

Skilled Public administration

0 Agriculture & defence
workers
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Professionals
Hotels & restaurants
Manufacturing Technicians
Employees rotating different-skill tasks with colleagues 60 Electricity, gas & water
Financial intermediation
Education Service/sales workers
Machine operators
Note: Figures apply to employees only. Real estate Transport &
communication Wholesale and retail trade
Other services
50 Unskilled workers
Clerical workers

Figures 6.4 and 6.5 show the levels of functional flexibility

and teamwork (both ‘basic’ and ‘advanced’) among EU27 40
20 30 40 50 60 70
employees in different sectors and occupations. Health is
Employees rotating tasks with colleagues
the sector that displays the greatest prevalence of advanced
forms of both functional flexibility and teamwork. Other Note: Figures apply to employees only.

53
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Figure 6.5: ‘Advanced’ functional flexibility and superior shows a downward trend, the work done by
teamwork, by sector and occupation (%) colleagues and numerical and production targets are
increasing in importance as determinants of the pace of
50
Health work in Europe.4

Table 6.4 shows the determinants of pace of work in

Employees in autonomous teams

40
Agriculture different occupations and sectors. Direct demands from
Professionals
Education Technicians
people are most important in services sectors (more than
Construction 70%), and in high-skilled occupations (more than 70% for
Senior managers Electricity, gas & water
Public administration & defence
Other services
senior managers, professionals and technicians). Direct
Service/sales workers Skilled workers
30 Wholesale and retail trade
Transport & Hotels & restaurants demands are least important in agriculture and fishing
communication Real estate
Clerical workers
Manufacturing
(35%) and manufacturing (55%), and for those occupations
Financial intermediation
Unskilled workers
Machine operators more closely linked to manufacturing industry – skilled
20 workers, machine operators and unskilled occupations (all
20 30 40 50 60
Employees rotating different-skill tasks with colleagues
between 50% and 60%).

The automatic speed of a machine, by contrast, is a major

Note: Figures apply to employees only.
determinant of the pace of work in manufacturing (41%),
and is also important in construction (24%), transport and
Determinants of pace of work communications (23%) and agriculture (22%); in sectoral
terms it is a very important determinant of pace of work
As Table 6.4 indicates, the most important determinant of among machine operators (50%) and skilled workers (33%).
the pace of work – according to more than 68% of European However, it is almost negligible in education, health, and
workers – is direct demands from people, which can be other services, and in professional and service occupations.
understood as an indicator of direct market constraints
In Figure 6.6, countries are plotted on a chart, according to
upon the work process. By contrast, the most visible
the percentage of workers whose pace of work depends on
industrial constraint – a pace of work determined by the
market constraints, i.e. direct demands from people, and
automatic speed of a machine – affects only 19% of
the percentage of workers whose pace of work depends on
European workers (a proportion that has been decreasing
industrial constraints, i.e. the speed of a machine. A
over the past 15 years).
negative correlation between the incidences of the two types
In recent years, shifts in the structure of the economy (with of constraints is clearly visible: for countries in which
the services sector growing at the expense of market constraints are more important, industrial
manufacturing) have resulted in changes in the
determinants or constraints of work. Moreover, pressure Figure 6.6: Market constraints and industrial
from increasing market competition, economic activity and constraints as determinants of pace of work, by
consequently work itself is becoming more directly country (%)
dependent on market constraints. 80
SE NO NL
CY FI
DK FR
Between these two poles of industrial and market CH EL IT
MT UK ES AT CZ
Direct demands from people

constraints, there are three types of determinants that do 70 IE BE

DE HR PT
LU SK
not fit so clearly into either bracket (and affect more than SI
EE
one third of the EU working population): the work done by 60 HU
LV LT
colleagues (42%), numerical production targets (42%) and
BG
PL RO
the direct control of a superior (36%); these types of
50 TR
constraints reflect the organisation of work, rather than
external constraints. In any case, the survey responses
40
regarding these five indicators confirms the predominance 0 10 20 30 40
Automatic speed of a machine
of market constraints and the decreasing importance of
mechanised industrial constraints. While direct control of a

4
For a discussion of the evolution of these and other indicators, see the Foundation résumé, 15 years of working conditions in the EU: Charting the trends,
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0685.htm

54
 Work organisation

Table 6.4: Determinants of pace of work, by sector and occupation (%)

Direct demands Work done Numerical Direct control Automatic

from people by colleagues production of boss speed of
targets a machine
EU27 average 68.1 42.2 42.1 35.7 18.8
Employment status
Employers 83.4 35.6 45.2 3.7 18.5
Self-employed 69.88 16.5 32.8 6.4 12.6
Permanent employee 67.97 46.0 45.5 40.8 19.87
Non-permanent employee 64.5 47.8 36.5 45.7 20.1

Cramer's V 0.08 0.20 0.10 0.29 0.06

Sector
Agriculture 29.6 33.3 50.1 22.1 22.1
Manufacturing 54.7 51.6 63.3 46.1 41.4
Electricity, gas and water 65.3 48.9 47.1 38.1 14.6
Construction 67.4 57.6 51.5 43.4 23.5
Wholesale and retail trade 82.0 34.5 31.1 33.8 13.1
Hotels and restaurants 87.6 48.7 30.9 36.8 14.3
Transport and communication 70.6 42.4 46.8 38.6 22.4
Financial intermediation 77.2 37.6 48.6 36.3 10.1
Real estate 71.1 39.5 41.0 31.6 11.7
Public administration and defence 61.7 43.9 30.5 39.9 10.8
Education 79.4 30.5 32.8 28.4 3.8
Health 83.0 47.7 30.08 29.5 7.9
Other services 65.8 31.5 29.2 24.95 9.7

Cramer's V 0.30 0.18 0.26 0.16 0.31

Occupation
Senior managers 83.0 39.8 45.3 21.4 15.0
Professionals 76.2 37.8 41.5 27.4 7.9
Technicians 74.8 41.7 43.1 35.9 12.4
Clerical workers 72.4 44.3 34.4 42.0 13.0
Service and sales workers 82.0 37.4 29.8 31.8 9.4
Agricultural and fishery workers 27.3 26.9 47.4 12.1 18.4
Skilled workers 59.6 51.6 55.7 44.8 33.7
Machine operators 55.1 51.7 56.1 48.5 49.6
Unskilled workers 53.4 38.9 33.2 40.9 19.7

Cramer's V 0.29 0.13 0.18 0.19 0.31

constraints are less important, and vice versa. In Turkey
and most eastern European countries, the automatic speed
of a machine is a much more important determinant of the
pace of work – and direct demands from people a much less
important determinant – than in most other countries.
Figure 6.7 plots countries in a similar way, but using the
determinants of direct demands from people, and direct
control by a superior. A clear negative correlation is once
again apparent, as is an even clearer differentiation of
countries: for northern European countries, work is strongly
determined by direct demands from people, while the direct
control of a superior is almost negligible as a determinant;
for countries such as Bulgaria and Croatia, direct control by
a superior is still an important determinant of the pace of
work, while direct demands by people play a more limited
role. Cyprus, Malta and the UK are exceptions to this
pattern: in these countries, work is strongly determined by
direct demands from people; however, the direct control of
a superior is also an important determinant.
Econometric analysis of the impact of the different
determinants of pace of work on working conditions was
carried out to show that the impact is quite significant in
most areas. Workers whose pace of work is determined by
the automatic speed of a machine or by numerical
production targets are more likely to be affected by physical
health problems, to perceive work as more intense and

55
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Support at work
Another, less formal way in which employees collaborate at work is through assistance – either from colleagues, superiors or from
individuals outside the organisation. Table 6.5 illustrates the availability of these three sources of support in different sectors, in
different occupations and in terms of the extent of use of technology. Nine out of 10 employees in most sectors and occupations
can get assistance from colleagues if they need it; a slightly smaller proportion – eight out of 10 – can also get assistance from their
superiors. External assistance is much less available, only around 50% of employees having access to it if needed; its availability
varies considerably among occupations (as indicated by the higher value of Cramer’s V, which indicates the variability of each
indicator).5

In general, for positions higher in the occupational structure, more support is available from colleagues, superiors and, in particular,
external sources. The type of technology used at work is also related to the availability of support: those using information
technologies have more support. Sectoral differences do not seem to be very important in determining the availability of support.

Table 6.5: Sources of support at work (%)

Support from colleagues Support from superior External support
EU27 average 88.2 81.2 49.7
Sector
Agriculture 89.25 84.0 52.4
Manufacturing 90.2 80.3 42.0
Electricity, gas and water 92.3 87.0 54.3
Construction 93.1 85.1 55.09
Wholesale and retail trade 88.9 85.0 49.0
Hotels and restaurants 87.9 80.3 39.7
Transport and communication 79.5 77.2 49.9
Financial intermediation 92.7 88.5 57.0
Real estate 86.7 82.2 52.7
Public administration and defence 93.5 84.5 56.8
Education 87.2 78.1 54.3
Health 90.4 81.2 53.1
Other services 76.5 72.2 46.7
Cramer’s V (sector) 0.15 0.10 0.11
Occupation
Senior managers 92.3 84.7 68.7
Professionals 91.1 84.9 59.4
Technicians 91.1 85.7 55.6
Clerical workers 88.5 82.7 47.9
Service and sales workers 86.6 82.5 46.9
Agricultural and fishery workers 87.5 81.7 47.2
Unskilled workers 91.4 80.2 46.2
Machine operators 85.6 78.5 41.8
Unskilled workers 78.1 69.3 34.6
Cramer’s V (Occupation) 0.14 0.13 0.18
Technology at work
IT 90.9 85.7 56.8
IT and machinery 93.8 86.1 60.0
Machinery 89.2 78.1 41.2
Not technology-dominated 81.7 75.5 42.5
Cramer's V (technology) 0.13 0.12 0.16

Note: Figures apply to employees in the EU27 only.

5
Cramer's V is a coefficient that indicates the relationship among two categorical variables. The value for Cramer’s V gives a useful overview of the impact that
sector, occupation and technology make upon the availability of support. For instance, the value of 0.15 for support from colleagues in terms of sector is higher
than the value of 0.13 for support from colleagues in terms of technology; this greater variabliilty indicates that sector plays a bigger role in determining
availability of support than does the technology employed.

56
 Work organisation

Interruptions at work Figure 6.8 Interruptions at work (%)

Having frequent interruptions at work is another obvious 60
determinant of the pace of work; this can also have important
50
consequences in terms of stress and the perceived intensity of
the work effort. Around one third of EU workers experience 40

interruptions in their work often or very often, although in 30

most cases these interruptions are without consequences (see 20

Figure 6.8). Interruptions at work were compared (in a similar
10
manner to support available at work) by constructing a
0
composite index.6 Analysis of the different indices reveals that very fairly occasion- never without disruptive positive not
often often ally conse- relevant
interruptions at work are much more prevalent in service quences
sectors than in manufacturing, construction or transport and
communciations, and are more prevalent among workers in
the higher occupational ranks (see Table 6.6). Those using Note: The questions asked were: ‘How often do you have to interrupt a
information technologies and those with a higher degree of task in order to take on an unforeseen task?’ and ‘For your work, are these
autonomy at work report more frequent interruptions. interruptions…disruptive/without consequences/positive?’

Table 6.6 Interruptions index by sector, occupation, technology and autonomy

Sector Index Occupation

Agriculture 0.30 Senior managers 0.56
Manufacturing 0.35 Professionals 0.42
Electricity, gas and water 0.40 Technicians 0.42
Construction 0.37 Clerical workers 0.42
Wholesale and retail trade 0.38 Service and sales workers 0.38
Hotels and restaurants 0.42 Agricultural and fishery workers 0.32
Transport and communication 0.32 Skilled workers 0.35
Financial intermediation 0.44 Machine operators 0.25
Real estate 0.40 Unskilled workers 0.30
Public administration and defence 0.43 Autonomy
Education 0.36 0 (low) 0.26
Health 0.50 1 0.32
Other services 0.35 2 0.37
Technologies 3 0.40
Information technology 0.46 4 0.42
Information technology and machinery 0.46 5 (high) 0.49
Machinery 0.32 EU27 average 0.38
No technology 0.30

Figure 6.7: Types of demands as determinants of pace stressful, and to enjoy less autonomy at work. Workers
of work, by country (%) whose pace of work is determined by direct demands from
people report higher levels of negative psychological health
80
outcomes.
SE NL NO
FR CY
FI CH IT MT
AT EL UK
70 DK
DE
IE
ES
CZ Intensity of work
BE HR
SI LU PT
Direct demands from people

SK
EE The most direct impact of the pace of work on working
60 LV
LT HU conditions is via the perception of intensity of work. In the
RO
PL BG fourth European Working Conditions Survey, there are three
50 TR indicators for work intensity: ‘working at a very high speed’,
‘working to tight deadlines’ and ‘not having enough time to
40 get the job done’. In order to simplify the analysis, a

30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 6
The index assigns a value of 0 to ‘never’, 0.3 to ‘occasionally’, 0.6 to
Direct control by a superior ‘fairly often’ and 1.0 to ‘often’.

57
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

composite index has been constructed, using the two years ago is a rise in the levels of perceived work intensity.
indicators ‘working at a very high speed’ and ‘working to This rise, already evident in 2000, is confirmed by national
tight deadlines’ (the inclusion of the third indicator is not working conditions surveys in most Member States. In
possible because of the different construction of the scale
and because of its change in the last wave of the survey). 7 Figure 6.10: Evolution in work intensity, EU15,
Figure 6.9 indicates the value of the index for all 31 1991–2005 (%)
survey countries. There is considerable variation between
countries: while the intensity index for the EU27 as BE
measured in 2005 is 43%, it ranges from more than 50% in
Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Slovenia and
DK
Sweden to less than 35% in Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and
Poland.
DE
Figure 6.10 charts the change in work intensity over the last
15 years, for those countries included in the survey since
its inception. One of the clearest trends since the first EL

European Working Conditions Survey was carried out 15

ES

Figure 6.9 Intensity index, by country (%)

FR
S.I

FI
IE
SE

EL
IT
CY

DK

AT LU

DI

MT NL

HU

CZ
AT
ES

EU27
PT
IT

BE
FI
UK

EE
SE
LU

NL

FR UK

SK

P.T EU15

IE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
P.L
1991 1995 2000 2005
LT

LV

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Note: Austria, Finland and Sweden, being outside the EU in 1991, were not
included in that year’s survey. Data for 1991 cover EU12 only.

7
This index assigns a value of 0 to ‘never’, 10 to ‘almost never’, 25 to ‘a quarter of the time’, etc. The composite index is the average of the two indicators of
work intensity.

58
 Work organisation

almost all countries in the former EU15, there has been a Figure 6.11 Evolution in work intensity in the NMS,
clear and consistent increase in the levels of perceived work 2000–2005 (%)
intensity over the last 15 years.
CZ
In the NMS, however, there has been a slight decrease in
the perception of work intensity since 2001 (the first year
EE
for which we have data for these countries); the same
applies in Bulgaria and Romania (see Figure 6.11).
CY

In order to test what determines the perceived intensity of

LV
work, a multivariate regression was carried out: this
indicated that the hotels and restaurants sector has the
LT
highest levels of work intensity, and education the lowest.
In terms of occupation, there are no significant differences
HU
in intensity levels; there are, however, notable differences
depending on which technologies are in use at work: those
MT
working with machinery perceive the highest levels of
intensity at work. Having greater autonomy at work is
PL
associated with a lower perceived level of intensity, while
having to deal with frequent interruptions at work is
SI
associated with a higher level.

SK
Work organisation and intensity
NMS
In one of the most widely cited and used models of job
strain, Karasek explained stress at work as the interaction
BG
of psychological demands from work, with the degree of
control or decision latitude of the worker. The basic
RO
hypothesis of his model was that the negative health
outcomes of stress occur most often when the worker has to
AC2
face high levels of psychological demands, but has low
levels of autonomy at work: psychological demands create 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
stress; if the worker cannot channel this stress because of
2000 2005
their low levels of control, this ‘unreleased’ stress
accumulates and has a negative impact on health, job and high control); and passive work organisation (low
satisfaction, etc. The ideal situation would be, then, one in demands and low control).
which demanding work is accompanied by a higher degree
It is possible to replicate Karasek’s model with the data from
of control (what Karasek termed ‘active work situations’).8
the fourth survey, using the composite indicator of job
Although Karasek’s model was originally developed to autonomy and the composite index of work intensity (both
explain stress at work, it provides a useful conceptual discussed earlier); the composite indicator equates to
framework for linking work organisation and working Karasek’s concept of ‘control’, while the composite index
conditions. By looking simultaneously at job demands and equates to ‘job demands’.9 Figure 6.12 shows into which
job control, it is possible to divide the different forms of category of work organisation each country falls; it also
work organisation into four categories: active work indicates how they are positioned in relation to the EU27
organisation, characterised by high demands and high average (shown by the dotted lines). Figure 6.12
control; high-strain work organisation (high demands and summarises the overall conclusions of the analysis carried
low control); low-strain work organisation (low demands out in this chapter.

8
Karasek, J.A., ‘Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implication for job redesign’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 1979, pp. 285–308.
9
This way of applying Karasek’s model closely follows the approach of Gimeno, D. et al, ‘Psychosocial factors and work related sickness absence among
permanent and non-permanent employees’, Journal of Epidemiological Community Health, 2004, 58, pp. 870–876.

59
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Figure 6.12 shows that the Nordic countries included in the

survey most closely approach the ‘active work organisation’ Figure 6.13: Job demands and control, by sector and
category, which has been identifed as being most conducive occupation
to performance (without negative consequences for working 4.5
Low-strain work Active work
conditions): greater demands on the worker are

EU27 avg.
(intensity)
organisation organisation

counterbalanced by greater control over the content of 4 Senior managers

work, diminishing the negative impact of work intensity.

Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Germany and Greece 3.5 Financial intermediation

Control (autonomy)
Electricity, gas & water
Real estae
Professionals
approach most closely the category of ‘high-strain work Public administration
Agricultural & fishery workers
Technicians
& defence Other services EU27 avg.
organisation’: workers in these countries face levels of job 3 Education Agriculture (control)
Clerical workers
Health
demands that cause stress, but have relatively low levels of Wholesale & retail trade Construction
Transport and communication
Service & sales workers
2.5
autonomy; such a form of work organisation has the most Unskilled workers
Manufacturing
Skilled workers
Hotels and restaurants

negative impact on working conditions. Belgium,

2
Luxembourg and the Netherlands approach most closely Passive work
Machine operators
High-strain work
organisation organisation
the low-strain category, with low levels of demands but high
1.5
autonomy. (These three countries are characterised by very 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65

high productivity levels, which indicates that ‘low-strain’ Demands (intensity)

does not mean low performance). Finally, Bulgaria, Poland, Note: Figures apply to employees only.
Portugal and Slovakia approach most closely the passive
work organisation category; according to Karasek, this
model has the most negative implications for performance. To end this chapter, Figure 6.13 illustrates how sectors and
occupations fit into the work organisation model. Only
Figure 6.12: Job demands and control, by country workers in managerial positions fall into the ‘active work
organisation’ category; these are the only workers who, in
4.5
Low-strain work Active work general, enjoy high levels of control and at the same time
organisation organisation
have demanding jobs. Skilled and semi-skilled industrial
EU27 avg.
(intensity)

4
occupations and workers in hotels and restaurants and in
DKSE
3.5 NO manufacturing are closer to the category of ‘high-strain
Control (autonomy)

NL MT FI
LV LU
EE
CH
work organisation’, with high levels of stress and low
IE FR BE EU27 avg.
3
LT UK IT (control) control, and consequently, the most arduous working
AT
RO
PL
HU
SI TR
conditions. Professionals and those working in financial
PT ES DE
2.5 CZ CY
intermediation and public administration are closest to the
SK EL
BG ‘low-strain work organisation’ category. Finally, unskilled
2
Passive work High-strain work
workers and those in service occupations and the retail
organisation organisation
sector are closest to the ‘passive work organisation model’.
1.5
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.6 The positioning of occupations and sectors along the axes
Demands (intensity) of job demands and job control are clearly within
expectations and confirm the consistency of the approach.
Note: Figures apply to employees only.

60
 Impact of work on health
‘Maintaining and promoting the health and well-being of
workers’ is one of the four main pillars of the Foundation’s
research model for quality of work and employment.1
Earlier research by the Foundation has found that, despite
the general trend towards a service- and knowledge-based
economy, the physical and psychological strain factors of
work have not reduced substantially over the last 15 years.
Some of the trends observed in employment relationships
and working conditions in the last 15 years have in fact had
a negative impact on the health of European workers – for
example, the flexibilisation of the employment relationship2
or the intensification of work associated with new forms of
work organisation.3 It is crucial, therefore, to monitor the
relationship between work and health, as reported by
workers, in order to identify the most problematic cases
(according to sectors and occupations), so that specific
policies can be developed to address them.
This chapter will first consider the overall perceived impact
7
shown in Figure 7.1. While the EU27 average is 35%,
differences between European countries in this respect are
quite substantial. In Greece, Poland, Latvia and Slovenia,
around two thirds of workers report that their work affects
their health, a perception shared by only one fifth of UK
workers and one quarter of German, Dutch, Irish and
French workers. It is important to note that the levels of
health impact of work as shown in Figure 7.1 clearly reflect
other indicators of working conditions described elsewhere
in this report, although for this particular question, the
differences between countries are more significant. Eastern
European countries, on average, report the highest levels of
work-related health impact.
Figure 7.1: Perceived impact of work on health, by
country (%)
EL
PL

of work on health. It will then look at individual work- LV

SI
related health outcomes as measured in the fourth
EE
European Working Conditions Survey and their relationship SE
with characteristics of work and employment. The final RO
LT
section will explore the levels of health-related leave in
SK
Europe. HR
MT
Work can impact on health in numerous ways and its NO
effects vary from person to person. A person’s state of health BG

can in turn impact on how work is being carried out. TR

HU
Research shows that people at work tend to be in better
DK
health than the general population (the ‘healthy worker CY
effect’); this effect becomes even more pronounced in cases FI

of difficult work situations. Moreover, the level of reporting PT

IT
of health problems differs greatly between countries, gender, CZ
occupations, sectors, etc. ES
EU27
LU
Perceived impact of work on health
AT
CH
The first question about work-related health outcomes asks
BE
the respondent, ‘Does your work affect your health?’ This FR
question measures a worker’s individual perception of the IE

impact of health on work, and also serves as a filter NL

DE
question for detailing any symptoms the worker suffers from
UK
on account of work. As a single indicator, this general
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
question can be taken as a good approximation of the
health impact of work in different European countries, as Note: Respondents were asked ‘Does your work affect your health?’

1
See the Foundation report, Quality of Work and Employment in Europe, 2002, available online at
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2002/12/en/1/ef0212en.pdf
2
See Benach, Gimeno and Benavides, Types of employment and health in the European Union, 2002, available online at
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2002/21/en/1/ef0221en.pdf
3
See Daubas-Letourneux and Thébaud-Mony, Work organisation and health in the European Union, 2003, available online at
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2002/06/en/1/ef0206en.pdf

61
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Figure 7.2 shows the results for the same indicator, broken overall prevalence and considering which symptoms tend
down by sector and employment status. As with Figure 7.1, to be reported together, and then to establish the correlation
the differences are quite substantial: the agricultural sector between different symptoms, using factor analysis.
stands out as having a much higher level of work-related
Table 7.1: Percentage of workers reporting each
health impact; higher-than-average levels are also reported
individual symptom, EU27 (%)
for construction, manufacturing, transport, health and
education. The differences according to employment status Symptom
Backache 24.7
are not so pronounced, but still quite relevant and
Muscular pain 22.8
consistent with previous research: the self-employed report
Fatigue 22.6
higher levels of work-related health problems (45%) than
Stress 22.3
self-employed with employees (36%) or employees (average
Headaches 15.5
between permanent and non-permanent of 33%).
Irritability 10.5
Injuries 9.7
Figure 7.2: Impact of work on health, by sector and
Sleeping problems 8.7
employment status, EU27 (%)
Anxiety 7.8
Agriculture Eyesight problems 7.8
Manufacturing Hearing problems 7.2
Electricity, gas and water
Skin problems 6.6
Construction
Stomach ache 5.8
Wholesale and retail trade
Breathing difficulties 4.8
Hotels and restaurants
Transport and communication
Allergies 4.0
Financial intermediation Heart disease 2.4
Real estate Other 1.6
Public administration
and defence
Education
Figure 7.3: Number of reported symptoms per
Health
Other services
respondent, EU27 (%)

16
Self-employed (with employees)

Self-employed 14
Permanent employees
12
Non-permanent employees

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 10

Types of work-related health problems 6

The persons who replied in the affirmative to the question 4

about perceived impact of work on health were then asked 2

to identify from a list of 16 health symptoms those that
0
apply to them. Table 7.1 shows the percentages of workers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

reporting different symptoms across the EU27 as a whole.

The most often reported symptoms are musculoskeletal
disorders (backache and muscular pains), followed by
fatigue, stress, headaches and irritability. Other symptoms
such as problems with eyesight, hearing, skin and
respiratory problems are all reported by fewer than 10% of
workers.
It is important to note that because the question about
individual symptoms allows for multiple responses, most
people reported between two and six individual symptoms
(as shown in Figure 7.3). For this reason, it was decided to
analyse all the symptoms together, taking into account the
Sectoral and occupational differences
The physical and psychological health factors developed
from factor analysis are displayed in Figures 7.4, 7.5. and
7.6. The horizontal axis represents physical health factors:
the further an occupation, sector or country lies to the right,
the higher the incidence of this type of health outcome. The
vertical axis represents psychological health factors: the
further an occupation, sector or country lies towards the
top, the higher the incidence of this type of health outcome.
The chemical or biological factor was not analysed, as it
incorporates only a small percentage of the original
information and is highly specialised.

62
 Impact of work on health

Figure 7.4: Physical and psychological health factors, by In terms of sectors (Figure 7.4), agriculture has a high rating
sector, EU27 (%) for the physical health factor, but a low rating for the
0.7
+ Psychological
psychological health factor. Construction also has a fairly
0.6 high rating for the physical health factor (although lower
0.5
than agriculture); however, its rating for the psychological
health factor is below the average. The converse applies to
0.4

Education
the education, health and public administration sectors:
0.3
here, the levels of reported physical problems are below the
Public administration
and defence
0.2
Health average, but the levels of psychological strain are higher
Transport and
0.1 communication than for all other sectors. The sectors that are least affected
Financial Real estate Agriculture
intermediation Hotels and restaurants
0
by both factors are the wholesale and retail trade and
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Other services Manufacturing financial intermediation.
- Physical -0.1 + Physical
Wholesale and Electricity, gas and water
retail trade
-0.2
Construction
In terms of occupations, Figure 7.5 shows that agriculture is
- Psychological
-0.3
again very strongly affected by the physical health

Measuring the correlation between health symptoms factor (the most important factor, incorporating 38% of the
Factor analysis is a statistical technique that studies the original information), psychological health factor
correlation between groups of interrelated variables, looking (incorporating 9% of the original information) and respiratory
for patterns of correlation. When these patterns exist, the and skin health factor (incorporating 7%). To understand the
technique creates new variables – called factors – that sum up content of these factors, it is necessary to look at the rotated
the information contained in the original set of variables in a factor matrix: some variables show a strong correlation with
simpler way, even if some of the original information may be each factor and permit the interpretation of the factors. The
lost in the process. Because the individual variables in the first factor is strongly correlated with musculoskeletal
question on health impact of work are strongly correlated,
disorders (backache and muscular pains), fatigue, injury, stress
they are suitable for this technique.
and headaches. The second factor is strongly correlated with
Table 7.2 shows the outcome of this factor analysis: 55% of anxiety, sleep problems, irritability and stomach ache. Finally,
the information contained in the 16 original variables is the third factor captures respiratory problems, allergies, skin
summed up in three factors: physical and psychological health and heart problems.

Table 7.2: Factor analysis of individual symptoms (EU27)

Type of health outcome (using the rotated factor matrix)*
Physical (associated with Psychological (associated with Chemical/biological
physically demanding psychologically demanding (associated with chemical/
work environments) work environments) biological risks)
Hearing problems 0.51 0.04
Eyesight problems 0.38 0.26 0.27
Skin problems 0.40 0.05 0.59
Backache 0.82 0.25 0.12
Headaches 0.55 0.49 0.13
Stomach pain 0.14 0.60 0.22
Muscular pain 0.81 0.26 0.12
Breathing difficulties 0.21 0.07 0.69
Heart trouble -0.04 0.34 0.52
Injury 0.61 0.05 0.33
Stress 0.59 0.58 0.03
Fatigue 0.70 0.44 0.12
Sleeping problems 0.16 0.73 0.15
Allergies 0.15 0.14 0.68
Anxiety 0.15 0.74 0.08
Irritability 0.29 0.70 0.09
* rotation method = varimax with Kaiser normalisation (seven iterations)

63
 Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

outcomes of work. Skilled workers have relatively high psychological health problems, but low levels of physical
levels of physical health outcomes, but low levels of health problems. There are a number of countries in which
psychological health factors. Professionals and senior respondents report lower-than-average risk levels for both
managers report relatively high levels of psychologically factors: the UK (particularly low levels of physical health
related health problems but low levels of physical problems. factors), Germany, Netherlands, Ireland and Austria.

Employment status does not appear to be strongly related

to these two factors. Only the self-employed report relatively Health-related leave
higher levels (although not significantly so) of work-related
The fourth European Working Conditions Survey includes
health outcomes for both factors.
questions on health-related leave. Respondents were asked
Figure 7.5: Physical and psychological health factors, by if they had taken health-related leave in the previous 12-
occupation and employment status, EU27 (%) month period and, if so, how many days they took, and how
many of those days were on account of work-related health
0.7
+ Psychological problems. Health-related leave is a complex phenomenon,
0.6
dependent on many factors such as working conditions, the
0.5 individual health of the workers, and the different
0.4
regulatory systems operating in each country (and
sometimes even in each sector – the difference between the
0.3
public and private sector is quite important in this respect).
Professionals 0.2

Agricultural and
Senior managers
Permanent
0.1 Self-employed fishery workers Figure 7.7: Proportion of workers taking health-related
Technicians Clerical employee
workers
Armed forces
0
Self-employed (with employees) Machine operators leave and average days taken, by country
-0.4 -0.3 Service -0.2
and -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
sales workers
- Physical -0.1 Unskilled workers + Physical
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Non-permanent employee
Skilled workers
-0.2 FI
- Psychological MT
-0.3
NL
DK
Figure 7.6: Physical and psychological health factors, by
LU
country, EU27 (%) BE
SI
0.7
+ Psychological EL CZ
0.6
SE
EE
0.5 DE
LV EE
0.4
NO
LT
0.3 SE IT
MT CY
0.2 BG HU
LU RO SI
IT PT
LV
FR 0.1
SK SK
- Physical BE + Physical
FI HU
0 EU27
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 DK 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 PL 0.6 0.7
NL IE ES
UK
-0.1
UK
AT CZ
DE IE
-0.2
LT
- Psychological
-0.3 AT
BG
Country differences PL
HR
Figure 7.6 indicates which kinds of work-related health
CH
problems are most often reported in different countries. FR
Substantial differences are apparent in this respect. Greece TR
has very high levels of reported physical and psychological CY

work-related health problems, followed by Estonia and ES

EL
Lithuania. Respondents in Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia
PT
report high levels of physical risks but relatively low levels RO
of psychological risk. The opposite is the case for Sweden: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

respondents here report relatively high levels of Average number of days taken

64
 Impact of work on health

However, these national and sectoral differences remain Figure 7.9: Health-related leave, by sex and
outside the scope of this report. employment status, EU27 (%)

Figure 7.7 gives a picture of health-related leave levels

Men
across the EU27: the horizontal bars represent the

Sex
proportion of workers in each country who took health-
Women
related leave in the previous 12-month period; the
diamonds (its scale is at the bottom of the graph) represent Employers
the average number of days’ leave these workers took.

Employment status
There seems to be no correlation between the levels of Self-employed

reported impact of work on health (as described in the

Permanent
previous section) and the levels of health-related leave. The employee

countries with higher levels of reported work-related health Non-permanent

employee
problems are not the countries where there is more health-
related leave. For instance, Greece, which has by far the EU27 average
highest level of reported impact of work on health, has one
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
of the lowest proportions of workers taking health-related
leave. This clearly demonstrates the complex and Note: Figures apply to workers who took health-related leave over previous
12 months.
multidimensional aspects of health-related absenteeism.
Figure 7.8: Average number of health-related leave A different way of presenting the same information is shown
days per worker (all workers), by country in Figure 7.8. In this case, the average for each country
refers to the number of health-related leave days taken per
HR
worker. This includes all active workers, not only those who
SI
PT
did actually take leave. It serves as an indicator for the
NL impact of health-related leave on each of the national
FI labour markets: it means that, on average, each worker in
NO Croatia took slightly more than nine days’ health-related
BE
leave in 2005, compared to only two days for Romanian
SE
DK
workers.
PL
Figure 7.9 presents data regarding health-related leave,
FR
broken down by sex and employment status. An average of
CZ
LU
23% of workers across the EU27 reported taking time off
SK work on account of health-related problems during the
HU previous 12-month period, with slightly more women (24%)
TR
than men (22%) affected. Table 7.3 presents data showing
EE
the average number of health-related days of leave taken
EU27
BG
by workers across the EU27, broken down by sex,
LT employment status and size of company.
LV
Finally, Table 7.4 gives the sectoral breakdown for health-
CH
CY related leave, with agriculture (14%) and public
IE administration and defence representing the two extreme
MT poles (30%) and most other sectors adhering closely to the
IT
EU27 average number of days.
UK
ES
DE
AT
EL
RO

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

65
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Table 7.3: Number of days of health-related leave

Average no. of Average no. of days Average no. of Average no. of
days taken by taken by workers accident-related other work-related
workers (all) who took at least days taken by days taken by
one day of leave workers (all) workers (all)
EU27 average 4.6 20.2 0.4 1.8
Men 4.2 19.2 0.5 1.8
Women 5.0 21.3 0.4 1.7
Self-employed 2.8 21.2 0.3 1.4
Permanent employee 5.5 21.1 0.4 2.2
One-person enterprise 2.5 22.9 0.2 1.3
Micro enterprise (2–9 workers) 3.2 19.0 0.5 1.0
Small enterprise (10–49 workers) 4.6 19.0 0.4 1.9
Medium sized enterprise (50–249 workers) 5.6 19.0 0.5 2.0
Large enterprise (250 + workers) 7.4 24.3 0.7 3.0

Table 7.4: Health-related leave, by sector, EU27 (%)

Sector

Agriculture 14.2
Manufacturing 25.9
Electricity, gas and water 26.4
Construction 21.3
Wholesale and retail trade 19.4
Hotels and restaurants 18.8
Transport and communication 25.0
Financial intermediation 22.5
Real estate 18.2
Public administration and defence 30.7
Education 29.9
Health 25.4
Other services 18.5
EU27 average 22.9

Note: Percentage of workers who took health-related leave over previous 12

months.

66
 Management and
communication structures
One of the defining features of the European economic and
social model is the level of employee participation and
involvement in decision-making in the workplace, carried
out through both formal and informal channels. This was
acknowledged by the EU Information and Consultation
Directive (2002/14/EC), which extended this model to the
few European countries where there was no such tradition.
This report, based as it is on a survey of individual workers,
is not the vehicle for exploring formal systems of employee
representation at the workplace. The survey findings,
however, give an overview of the extent of informal
communication in European workplaces, and how this is
organised. As employee participation and communication
takes place mainly between hierarchical levels in the
workplace, this chapter first looks at hierarchical structures
in European countries and then examines how
communication and participation take place.1
Managerial and supervisory positions
The survey reveals a number of key findings concerning
hierarchical levels in European companies. The
concentration of managerial and supervisory roles varies
between country groups: there are, for example,
8
substantially greater concentrations of top-level managers
in the UK and Ireland than in other country groups. Both
longer working hours and higher remuneration are
characteristic of those occupying higher management
positions. Women occupy far fewer supervisory and man-
agerial roles than do men, and, when in these roles, they
mainly manage other women, or less qualified workers.
The structure of workplace hierarchies differs between
different European country groupings. Figure 8.1 gives an
overview of the proportion of workers with supervisory or
managerial roles across European countries.2
According to the survey, around 20% of respondents have
some type of managerial or supervisory role: between a half
and three quarters of them are supervisors, while between
a quarter and a half are managers.
The proportion of supervisors and managers in a company
is, to a large extent, determined by company characteristics
such as its size, and the economic sector in which it
operates. However, the variation between country groups
also suggests that there are different management models
and hierarchical cultures in the various countries.

Figure 8.1: Proportion of supervisors and managers in For example, the proportion of top-level managers in
workforce, by country group (%) Ireland and the UK (at 9%) is higher than in the other
country groups; in eastern European countries and the
DK, NL, FI, SE acceding countries, the proportion is below average (just
over 1% in both groups). In southern European countries
IE, UK
(and to a lesser extent also in Ireland and the UK) there is
BE, DE, FR, LU, AT
a somewhat above-average proportion of managers of small
EL, ES, IT, CY, MT, PT companies (7% and 6% respectively). In Bulgaria and
CZ, EE, LV, LT, Romania, the figure is 2%.
HU, PL, SI, SK
AC2: BG, RO
Working hours and salary
CC2: TR, HR
Two key dimensions of working conditions are working
Non-EU: CH+NO hours and salary. As Figures 8.2 and 8.3 indicate, as the
EU27
level of responsibility rises, both working hours and salaries
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
increase substantially. While – according to the survey –
workers with no managerial or supervisory responsibilities
supervisors of 10 or fewer people supervisors of more than 10 people
comprise more than 80% of the workforce, only 9% of them
managers of small companies top-level managers
work more than 48 hours per week. By contrast, between
20% and 25% of those with supervisory responsibilities
Note: ‘Top-level managers’ refers to ISCO codes 11 and 12: senior managers
work more than 48 hours per week, while 30% of top-level
in public and private enterprises; ‘managers of small companies’ refers to
managers do so. Interestingly, managers of small companies
ISCO code 13.

1
The information in this chapter relates to workers in establishments of two or more people.
2
The variable – managerial or supervisory position – was constructed using two different sources: the question concerning the occupation of the respondent
and the question concerning supervisory duties (‘How many people work under your supervision, for whom pay increases, bonuses or promotion depend
directly on you?’).

67
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Figure 8.2: Working hours, by position (%) Figure 8.4: Proportion of women superiors, by
country (%)
Subordinates
FI
EE
Supervisors of 10 or
fewer people LT
UK
Supervisors of more SI
than 10 people
SE
NO
Managers of small
companies LV
HU

Top-level managers IE
DK
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PL
SK
20 hours or fewer 21–34 hours 35–38 hours 39–41 hours
PT

42–48 hours 48 hours + BG

BE
FR
Note: Subordinates are respondents who report having no managerial or
HR
supervisory responsibilities.
RO
EU27
work longer hours than do all other groups – 41% work CZ

more than 48 hours per week. AT

NL
Supervisory or managerial position has an even greater MT
impact on salary than on working hours: more than 40% of ES

top-level managers are in the top 10% of the income scale CH

of all respondents, compared to less than 10% for EL

LU
subordinates; similarly high figures are seen for supervisors
DE
of more than 10 people. Managers of small companies on
IT
average, however, earn slightly less: fewer than 40% are in TR
the top income bracket. CY
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Figure 8.3: Place in salary scale, by position (%)

Figure 8.5: Sex of immediate superior, by sex of
respondent (%)
Subordinates

Supervisors of 10
or fewer people
Men
Supervisors of more
than 10 people
Women
Managers of
small companies
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Top-level
managers male boss female boss

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2005. As Figure 8.4 indicates, differences between countries

Note: Scale ranges from lowest to highest income decile.
in this respect are substantial. The highest proportions of
women in supervisory and managerial positions are in the
Women in supervisory positions
Scandinavian countries and Netherlands and in the eastern
Since 1995, the European Working Conditions Survey has
European countries (reaching nearly 40% in Finland and
asked respondents whether their immediate superior is a
Estonia); by contrast, southern European countries, and
man or a woman. From the answer given, a slight,
some continental countries, have the lowest proportions –
gradual increase in the percentage of women superiors has
less than 20% in Germany and Italy.
been visible: from 20% in 1995, to 23% in 2000, to 25% in

68
 Management and communication structures

Figure 8.6: Sex of immediate superior, by position of Communication with employee representatives
respondent (%) Another important dimension of communication within the
workplace (particularly in the European model) is the
Subordinates communication that takes place between workers and
employee representatives.
Supervisors of 10
or fewer people
To measure the extent of such communication, the survey
Supervisors of more asked respondents whether they had discussed work-
than 10 people
related problems with an employee representative in the
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
previous 12-month period. In the EU27, around one in five
male boss female boss
employees had discussed work-related problems with
employee representatives in the previous 12 months. Again,
Figure 8.5 shows that most female supervisors and differences between country groupings are substantial:
managers in the EU27 have female subordinates: fewer around 30% of respondents in the acceding countries, the
than 10% of men have a woman as their immediate eastern European countries and Ireland and the UK report
superior, as against 42% of women. such communication, as compared to between 16% and
Figure 8.6 shows that the proportion of female superiors 19% in continental countries and southern European
falls as the position of those they are supervising rises: that countries.
is, female superiors are more prevalent among the lower
Different sectors and different sizes of organisations have
ranks of workers. A related finding is that women are more
different levels of employee representation, and these
likely to supervise part-time than full-time workers: 41% of
differences are reflected in the survey findings. As Figure
part-time workers have female bosses, compared to 21% of
8.7 shows, the bigger the company, the greater the reported
full-time workers. Both men and women in part-time
levels of communication with employee representatives. A
employment are more likely to be managed by a woman.
number of sectors also report higher levels of
communication: public administration and defence;
Communication and consultation electricity, gas and water; transport and communication;

Communication with superiors

In order to measure the extent to which workers interact Figure 8.7: Communication with employee
with their immediate superiors, the survey asked representative, by sector and size of enterprise (%)
respondents whether they had had a discussion with their
Agriculture
boss about their work performance over the previous year,
Manufacturing
and also if they had discussed work-related problems.
Electricity, gas and water
There are substantial differences between the different Construction
country groups in the levels of direct communication Wholesale and retail trade

between workers and superiors. These differences cannot Hotels and restaurants

be explained solely by the relative proportions of Transport and communication

supervisors (see Figure 8.1), or by differences in the relative Financial intermediation

importance of economic sectors or types of companies: Real estate

instead, they would seem to reflect the existence of different Public administration and defence

organisational cultures. The highest levels of direct Education

communication in European workplaces are in the Health

Other services
Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, where more
than 70% of workers had discussed their work performance,
Micro enterprise (2–9 employees)
and work-related problems with their superior. In Ireland
Small enterprise (10–49 employees)
and the UK, and in the eastern European countries, the
Medium enterprise (50–249 employees)
figure was between 50% and 60%, while the lowest levels
Large enterprise (250+ employees)
were observed in southern European and continental
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
countries (around 40%). These findings are consistent with
published research on organisational systems in different
Note: The question asked if respondents had discussed work-related
EU countries. problems with an employee representative in the previous 12-month period.

69
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

and manufacturing. Lower levels of communication are
reported in small companies, construction and other
services.
Consultation on work organisation
In addition to discussions on performance and work-related
problems, another element of workplace communication is
the extent of consultation regarding changes in work
organisation and working conditions. As Figure 8.8
indicates, the highest levels of such consultation are found
in the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, where
more than 70% of respondents report having been
consulted about changes in work organisation or working
conditions in the previous 12-month period, almost twice
the level found in southern European countries (just under
40%).
The findings also show that the level of consultation
reported by workers is related to their occupation: the lower
a respondent’s position in the occupational structure, the
less they are consulted about changes in work organisation
or working conditions. Almost 70% of senior managers are
consulted, compared to less than 40% in all blue-collar
occupations, both skilled and unskilled.

Figure 8.8: Consultation in the workplace, by country Figure 8.9: Consultation in the workplace, by
groups (%) occupation (%)

DK, NL, FI, SE Senior managers

IE, UK Professionals

BE, DE, FR, LU, AT Technicians

EL, ES, IT, CY, MT, PT Clerical workers

CZ, EE, LV, LT, HU, PL, SI, SK Service and sales workers

Agricultural and
AC2: BG, RO
fishery workers

CC2: TR, HR Skilled workers

Non-EU: CH+NO Machine operators

EU27 Unskilled workers

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Note: The question asked if respondents had been consulted about changes Note: The question asked if respondents had been consulted about changes
in work organisation and/or working conditions in the previous 12-month in work organisation and/or working conditions in the previous 12-month
period. period.

70
 Work–life balance 9
Extensive data was collected in the fourth European response. For this reason, the survey included additional
Working Conditions Survey about the organisation of time, questions to further explore elements of work–life balance.
including working time and time spent on non-work
One of the principal factors influencing work–life balance
activities (domestic tasks, caring for children and older
is the volume of hours worked. The more hours a person
relatives as well as leisure, voluntary and political
works, the greater the difficulty in reconciling work and non-
activities), and about people’s perceptions as to how well
working activities. While very high levels of basic
their working arrangements fit in with family and social
satisfaction with work–life balance (85% and higher) is
commitments.
reported by those working fewer than 30 hours per week,
These questions sketch a broad picture of people’s work–life
balance in Europe. They provide information which enable Figure 9.1: Perception of work–life balance, trends over
the links between work and non-working life to be explored time (%)
– for example, the working time arrangements of parents

2000
EU15
and their domestic responsibilities and the degree of
satisfaction with the work–life balance of each partner. They
also make it possible to identify particular categories of BG+RO
2001
workers who express comparatively high levels of
dissatisfaction with their work–life balance. What these NMS
questions cannot do, of course, is identify the institutional
settings, such as levels of social provision (e.g. childcare) EU25
and the social organisation of time, which vary greatly from
country to country and which could influence workers’
BG+RO
perceptions of work–life balance. Equally, issues relating to
2005

changing gender roles and expectations in work and family

NMS
life can only be approached indirectly. Nevertheless, what
workers report regarding their work–life balance impacts on
the quality of their work and also reflects the broader social EU15

perspective.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

This chapter will look at how negative or positive reporting very well well not very well not at all well
of work–life balance varies according to sex, parental status
Note: Question asked ‘In general, do your working hours fit in with your
and number of working hours. It also explores how other
family or social commitments outside work?’
aspects of working time – regularity, predictability, flexibility,
individual discretion over working hours, and different
Figure 9.2: Perception of work–life balance, by length
working time schedules – affect work–life balance.
of working week, EU27 (%)

Satisfaction with work–life balance

fewer than
In the survey, respondents were asked if their job ‘fits in 10 hours

with their family or social commitments outside work’

according to a four-point scale (‘very well’, ‘well’, ‘not so 10–30
well’, ‘not at all well’). Four out of five European workers
say they are satisfied with how their working time
31–35
arrangements fit in with their non-work commitments.
Satisfaction levels in the older Member States have
remained similar since the previous survey in 2000, while in 36–40

the new Member States and Bulgaria and Romania they

have declined by around 5%. (see Figure 9.1) 41–45

The overall figure for positive perception of work–life

balance is high (over 80% in the EU as a whole) but, as with over 45
hours
the survey question regarding general job satisfaction (see
Chapter 10), questions on satisfaction with work–life 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

balance tend to routinely elicit high levels of positive very well well not very well not at all well

71
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Figure 9.3: Perception of work–life balance, by country over 40% of those working more than 45 hours per week
report that their working hours do not fit in well with their
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
family and social commitments (see Figure 9.2).
NO

AT Broken down by country, the data show considerable

DK variation, from 11% dissatisfaction with work–life balance
CH
in Norway and Austria to over 40% in Greece (see Figure
FI
9.3). Including a country marker for average weekly working
DE
hours (in the respondent’s main job) confirms that there is
UK
a positive correlation between hours worked and
NL
dissatisfaction with work–life balance at a country level.
LU

BE
Gender differences
PT
Given the assumption that working women remain
FR
disproportionately involved in unpaid domestic and caring
IE

CZ
activities – an assumption supported by evidence from the
EU27
survey, as shown later in this chapter – a key focus in the
SE work–life balance debate has been the specific pressures on
MT working women. It is interesting, therefore, to note that men
SK report more dissatisfaction with their work–life balance than
CY women. The main factors contributing to this unexpected
LT outcome are, however, the volume of weekly working hours
EE and the different ways in which working hours are
ES organised between men and women. In general, part-time
HR
workers are twice as likely as full-time workers to have a
SI
positive perception of their work–life balance. The high
RO
incidence of part-time work among women, and the low
BG
incidence of part-time work among men, are therefore key
HU
factors in explaining the levels of satisfaction with work–life
IT

PL
balance among working men and women.
LV However, even among both sexes working full-time, a
TR
somewhat higher proportion of men (24% compared to 20%
EL
of women) have a negative perception of their work–life
30 36 42
hours
48 54 60 balance.
not very well not at all well weekly hours
Working parents
If attention is focused on the working parents of children
Note: Question asked ‘In general, do your working hours fit in with your
aged under 16, the differences between the sexes is even
family or social commitments outside work?’ more pronounced. Working fathers tend to have a more
negative assessment of their work–life balance than working

Table 9.1: Working hours and family life, by sex, EU27 (%)

Men Women

Do your working hours fit with no dependent with dependent with no with dependent
in with your family or social children under 16 children dependent children children
commitments outside work? under 16 under 16 under 16

very well 31.3 24.4 36.6 32.9

well 48.4 48.7 47.7 48.8
not very well 15.4 20.0 13.1 14.7
not at all well 5.0 6.9 2.6 3.6

72
 Work–life balance

Figure 9.4: Incidence of part-time work, by sex and Figure 9.5: Weekly working hours, by household
household situation, EU27 (%) situation, EU27 (%)

45 45

40
40
35
30
35

hours
25
20 30
15
10 25
5
0 20
Men Women No children One child Two children Three children Four or more

no children under 16 children under 16 men women

mothers (27% of fathers compared to 18% of mothers), as
Table 9.1 indicates.
The same determining factor in this case is the volume of
weekly working hours: the different take-up of part-time
work between men and women creates an even larger
gender time gap for working parents.
working mothers. For working fathers, a longer working
week, possibly combined with changing social expectations
regarding the domestic role of fathers (and, possibly,
frustration at their inability to fulfil such expectations) may
contribute to their relative dissatisfaction with their work–
life balance.

While the incidence of part-time work among men in
general is low, men without children are twice as likely to
work part time (9%) as are men with children (4%), as
Figure 9.4 shows. By contrast, parenthood for women
implies an increased incidence of part-time work. Both
trends contribute to the growing incidence of ‘one-and-a-
half’ worker households, with a full-time working father and
a part-time working mother.
It is also the case that working fathers tend to work longer
weekly hours as their parental responsibilities grow.
Working fathers living with two children aged under 16
years work more than two hours extra each week, compared
to men without children (see Figure 9.5). Only among
fathers with extended family responsibilities (three or more
children) is there a slight reduction in weekly working
hours.
The opposite is the case for working mothers: they work
fewer hours than women without children, although this is
largely due to the prevalence of part-time work among
working mothers. Among women who work full time, the
average weekly working hours increase according to the
number of children they have.
Paid and unpaid working hours
Domestic work
Despite the increasing participation of women in the labour
force, the traditional division of domestic responsibilities
between men and women persists. Results from the survey
reveal that a much higher proportion of working women
than working men devotes time outside work to domestic
responsibilities, such as caring for children, housework or
cooking. Indeed, as indicated in Chapter 2 (on working
time), if the estimated weekly hours spent on these forms of
unpaid work are combined with hours spent in paid work,
a significant reversal of the conventional picture emerges.
On average, men work longer hours than women in their
paid jobs; however, when paid and unpaid hours are added
together, it is women who work the longest number of
hours. Women’s work and life are ‘balanced’ in the sense
that they devote comparable amounts of their time to both
paid and unpaid work, in particular between the ages of 25
and 54 years. A man’s ‘work’ tends largely to be confined to
his paid job.
Table 9.2: Unpaid weekly working hours, by sex and
age (%)

The divergent pattern of weekly working hours for men and Age of respondent Men Women
women with children is reflected in the growing gap in 24 years or younger 3.2 10.4
satisfaction with work–life balance. Working parents, both
25–39 years 9.2 31.8
male and female, tend to have lower levels of satisfaction
with work–life balance; however, the higher uptake of part- 40–54 years 8.6 26.9

time work offsets to an extent the dissatisfaction levels of 55 years or older 5.2 17.9

73
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Figure 9.6: Extent of out-of-hours contact, by length of of-hours contact, working long hours is associated with
average working week, EU27 (%) higher levels of contactability outside work (see Figure 9.6).
100
It is notable that managers (those with staff working under
90
their supervision) report this type of contact more than do
80
other workers, and that men, in general, appear to be more
70
affected (see Figure 9.7).
60

50
Type of working schedule
40

30 Another factor that influences perceptions of work–life

20 balance is the way in which working time is organised, both
10 in terms of its regularity and also with reference to the
0 ‘standard’ working schedule (around 40 hours per week,
fewer than 10–30 31–35 36–40 41–45 more than 45
10 hours per week hours per week working only weekdays). Working non-standard hours (in
every day at least once a week a couple of times a month
the evening, at weekends or at night after 22.00 hours) is
less often never
associated with poorer levels of work–life satisfaction.
Working long working days (of more than 10 hours) on a
Work and non-working time regular basis also has a negative impact.

Many societal time arrangements (opening hours of shops,

A new question (introduced in the survey in 2005) assesses
public institutions and schools, etc.) are organised to be
the extent to which work impinges on non-working life: it
broadly consistent with standard daytime working hours. It
asks workers whether they are contactable in relation to
is not surprising, therefore, that the optimal schedule from
their main paid job outside normal working hours. The
a work–life balance perspective is the standard one of
growth of faster communication technologies (phone lines,
daytime work during weekdays, without long days. Workers
mobile phones and broadband internet/email) over the past
who are regularly required to work outside these limits
five years has made such contact possible for the majority
report more dissatisfaction with their work–life balance;
of Europeans. For certain categories of workers – e.g. those
those having to carry out night work regularly are
with supervisory responsibilities, or the self-employed – this
particularly affected (see Figure 9.8).
can blur the boundaries between work and non-work. The
same communication technologies that make contact Consistent and regular schedules lead to greater satisfaction
possible may also make further work possible, effectively with work–life balance, while any deviations from a
extending working hours by stealth. In essence, this can be consistent working pattern tend to raise the levels of
seen as a form of negative ‘flexibility’. As the survey also dissatisfaction. Thus, working the same number of days per
revealed, rather than offering some protection against out- week or hours per day is preferable to working a variable
number of days or hours; fixed starting and finishing times
Figure 9.7: Extent of out-of-hours contact, by level of
are considered preferable to variable ones.
responsibility and sex (%)
Variability or ‘imposed’ flexibility that undermines the
regularity or predictability of working schedules is
Women
responsibilities
No supervisory

considered very unfavourable by workers from a work–life

balance perspective. Against a background of pressure to
Men
diversify working schedules – for example, from companies
wishing to extend or vary operating levels and times – it is
interesting to observe that the ‘old-fashioned’ working week
Women (of around forty hours, with regular weekday, daytime
responsibilities
Supervisory

schedules and little or no work at non-standard hours) is

still regarded very positively in work–life balance terms.
Men Regularity may be a more important consideration for
workers than flexibility when it comes to ensuring that their
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 working hours fit in well with their non-work commitments.
every day at least once a week a couple times of a month or less often
Workers who report that their working schedule changes
less often never
frequently report less satisfaction with their work–life

74
 Work–life balance

Figure 9.8: Dissatisfaction with work–life balance, by Figure 9.9: Perception of work–life balance, by notice
working schedule (%) given of changes to work schedule (%)

100
Regular long days
Regular atypical hours

90
Regular weekend work 80
70
Regular evening work
60

Regular night work 50

40
Daytime, some weekend
Daytime work schedule

including long days 30

Daytime, weekday, 20
variants

some long days

10
Daytime, some weekend
work, no long days 0
Not informed Informed Informed Informed Informed
Daytime, weekday, no long days same day day before several days several weeks
in advance in advance

Shiftwork
very well well not very well not at all well

Start / finish times not fixed

Type of schedules

Note: Question asked ‘Do your working hours fit in with your family or social
Start / finish times fixed
commitments outside work?’
Not same number
of days each week

Same number of days each week the merits of flexible working-time arrangements, it is
interesting to note that workers with such fixed, regular
Not same number of hrs each day
schedules express comparatively higher levels of
Same number of hrs each day
satisfaction with their work–life balance.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

women part time men full time
Notes: Regular weekend work is defined as working four or more
Saturdays/Sundays per month. Regular night work, regular evening work and
regular long days (of more than 10 hours) are defined as five instances or
more per month in each case. Male part-time workers were excluded due to
the small number of cases in individual categories.
balance (see Figure 9.9). Moreover, the shorter the period of
notice given in changes to schedules, the greater the degree
of dissatisfaction. Clearly, the ad hoc nature of such a work
schedule imposes an extra burden in terms of managing
non-working time.
Working-time organisation based on collective starting and
finishing times is usually associated with older, traditional
forms of production. In the context of the discussions on
women full time Flexibility that extends choices to workers (for example,
flexitime schemes) is marginally more favourable from a
work–life balance perspective. However, paradoxically, it is
those with most say in how their working time is organised
– those who replied that ‘working time is determined
entirely by myself’ – who express most dissatisfaction with
how their working hours fit in with their family and social
life. As a group, these respondents are the most
‘empowered’ in terms of working-time discretion; however,
this is evidently more than counterbalanced by other factors
– notably an increased number of working hours. The self-
employed – as a rule those with the greatest say in how their
working time is arranged – tend to work much longer hours
than employees. This tends to support the case that it is the
volume of hours worked – rather than control over working
time – that most influences satisfaction with work–life
balance.

75
 Satisfaction with working conditions
Work occupies a significant part of the waking hours of the
majority of European adults and in most cases provides the
basic means of economic sustenance. Work also
contributes to a sense of social identity and usefulness
within the context of the immediate work environment –
through relationships with one’s colleagues, boss, clients,
patients, etc. – and within society as a whole. Given the
central place of work, a measure of the psychological well-
being that individuals associate with their work can also be
10
If the EU15 countries are compared over the period 1995–
2005, a remarkably consistent proportion of workers
(between 83% and 85%) report themselves satisfied or very
satisfied with their work. What is clear, however, is that
these aggregate figures conceal large differences between
different groups of countries.
Figure 10.1: Work satisfaction trends, 1995–2005 (%)
100

seen as an indicator at a collective level of how well work

meets the professional, private and social needs of 90
individual workers.
80
Despite the acknowledged importance of work satisfaction
in employment policy and research – reflected at EU level
70
in its inclusion as an indicator of ‘quality of work’ in the
European Employment Strategy – it is important to point
60
out that it is a subjective measure. As a consequence, it may
be less empirically reliable than more objective or verifiable
50
work–life indicators – for example, working hours or
exposure to physical risks. Workers may report high levels
40
of work satisfaction for reasons to do with personal
disposition or outlook rather than the quality of the work
30
or working conditions. A worker in an ostensibly ‘good’ job
– well-paid, secure, with a generally positive working
20
environment – may report a lower level of work satisfaction
than someone in a more menial, less well-paid job, because
the two have very contrasting expectations of work. 10

It is also the case that in all surveys workers generally 0

EU15 EU15 EU25
appear predisposed to report high levels of satisfaction with 1995 2000 2005
working conditions. Over three quarters of workers will, on
very satisfied satisfied not very satisfied not at all satisfied
average, report themselves ‘content’ or ‘very content’ with
their job or working conditions when questioned, and the
fourth European Working Conditions Survey is no exception From the more detailed country breakdown of the 2005
to this pattern. survey shown in Figure 10.2, it can be seen that the
Netherlands and the Nordic countries generally show high
levels of satisfaction with working conditions, with
Main trends Denmark and Norway recording the highest levels. The
difference between the old and new Member States is clear
The last three European Working Conditions Surveys, in
in the country comparison: most of the EU15 Member
1995, 2000 and 2005, have included a question on work
States are above the EU average, in terms of respondents
satisfaction or satisfaction with working conditions: in each,
reporting themselves satisfied or very satisfied with their
five out of six workers consistently reported themselves
working conditions, with the exception of three southern
‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with working conditions in their
European countries – Italy, Spain and Greece; by contrast,
main paid job.1 There has been little change in the aggregate
all but one of the new Member States (Cyprus) are below
proportions of workers expressing satisfaction with working
the EU average. In general, national levels of satisfaction
conditions, as Figure 10.1 shows.

1
There was a change of question wording from 1995 to 2000. In 1995, the question asked was ‘On the whole, are you very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very
satisfied or not at all satisfied with your main job?’ In 2000, this was changed to ‘…are you […] satisfied with working conditions in your main paid job?’ and
this formulation has been retained in 2005.

77
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Figure 10.2: Work satisfaction, by country (%) factors contributing to satisfaction, such as income, working
time arrangements, possibilities for skills development and
DK career advancement, and the degree of individual control
NO over work.2
UK

CH Figure 10.3: Satisfaction with positive job elements (%)

AT

BE
Job security*
DE

NL Have very good

friends at work
LU
Feel 'at home'
IE in organisation
SE
Opportunities to
PT learn and grow

FI
Well paid for
CY the work done

FR Good prospects for

career advancement
EU27

CZ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MT
strongly agree agree neither agree nor disagree disagree strongly disagree
ES

PL

IT Note: Data based on answers to questions 37 a–f.

HU * Job security: Results were obtained from a reverse coding of the answers to
SK Q37a, ‘I might lose my job in the next six months’. For instance, ‘strongly
EE agree’ in the above legend is a reverse coding of the response ‘strongly
HR disagree’ to this question.

SI

LV

LT The questions (37 a–f in the questionnaire) relating to these

BG factors are in the form of statements and do not explicitly
EL mention ‘satisfaction’; nevertheless, they can be considered
RO useful proxies for frequently cited components of job or
TR work satisfaction. Thus, a respondent who agrees or
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 strongly agrees with the statement ‘I am well paid for the
very satisfied satisfied not very satisfied not at all satisfied job I do’ can reasonably be said to be expressing a positive
opinion about or satisfaction with their pay.

with working conditions appear to track closely standard
measures of national wealth: countries with higher GDP per
head report generally higher levels of satisfaction.
Indicators of satisfaction with work
The fourth European Working Conditions Survey includes a
number of new questions which are intended to throw light
on the different elements of work satisfaction. As indicated
above, working conditions surveys tend to reveal a high
proportion of individuals who report satisfaction with their
work. However, to gain a more accurate picture of work
satisfaction, it is necessary to examine in detail the various
In general, the high level of general work satisfaction
demonstrated in the single question on satisfaction with
working conditions (question 36) is only partially reflected
in respondents’ assessment of key elements of work
satisfaction – see Figure 10.3. Once these are considered on
an individual basis, a more nuanced picture emerges. For
the two questions relating to the respondent’s sense of
social integration in the company, (‘feel at home in the
organisation’ and ‘have very good friends at work’), there
are comparably high proportions of positive responses.
Similarly, the majority of respondents were also optimistic
about their job security: only 13% – less than one in seven
– considered it likely that they would lose their job over the

2
See the Foundation study, Measuring job satisfaction in surveys, available online at http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/reports/TN0608TR01/
TN0608TR01.htm

78
 Satisfaction with working conditions

ensuing six months. However, at least one third of workers
consider themselves to be underpaid; while about the same
proportion are optimistic about their prospects for career
advancement in their current job. Figure 10.3 indicates, in
particular, that workers are much less optimistic about their
prospects for career or personal development in their work
than the high levels of overall satisfaction with working
conditions might suggest.
Respondents who reported that their working hours fitted
not very well or not at all well with their family or social
commitments not surprisingly reported lower levels of
satisfaction with working conditions (Figure 10.4).
Figure 10.4: Level of work–life balance and satisfaction
with working conditions (%)
(‘opportunities to learn and grow’ and ‘prospects for career
advancement’) and work–life balance are also significantly
correlated with overall satisfaction with working conditions.
Intellectual and emotional demands
A second set of questions (25 h–m in the questionnaire),
introduced for the first time in the 2005 survey, explores
aspects concerning psychological well-being at work: the
feeling of doing useful work and a job well done, finding
work either intellectually or emotionally demanding, having
opportunities to do one’s best and apply new ideas in the
job. As with the previous questions related to work
satisfaction, the overall picture is positive (Figure 10.5). A
high proportion of workers in Europe consider that they do
useful work and that their job gives them the feeling of work

100 Figure 10.5: Aspects of work-related well-being (%)

90
100

80 90

70 80

70
60

60
50
50
40
40
30
30

20
20

10 10

0 0
Very satisfied Satisfied Not very Not at all Feeling of doing Feeling of work Opportunity to Able to apply
satisfied satisfied useful work well done do what you own ideas to
do best your work
Not at all well Not very well Well Very well
almost always often sometimes rarely almost never

Note: Responses (‘very well’, ‘well’ etc.) are based on answers to question 18:
‘Do your working hours fit in with your family or social commitments outside
work?’ Figure 10.6: Intellectual and emotional demands of
work, by sex (%)
Based on an analysis of the correlation between the main 100

job satisfaction question (Q36) and other questions with a

80
possible bearing on job satisfaction (Q18, Q25 h–m, Q27,
Q37 a–f and EF5), the most important factors correlated
60
with general satisfaction with working conditions are a
sense of belonging in one’s company or organisation (‘I feel 40

at home in this organisation’) and a perception of being well

20
rewarded.

Significantly, the perception of being well paid appears to be 0

Men Women Men Women
much more important than actual income itself (as
Intellectually demanding Emotionally demanding
indicated by the place of respondents in the income
almost always often sometimes rarely almost never
distribution scale). Developmental possibilities in work

79
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

well done: the ratio of such positive statements to negative Figure 10.7: Dissatisfaction with working conditions, by
statements is over 10:1. In terms of how work presents group (%)
opportunities for using one’s own ideas, the responses are
Third level (ISCED 5+6)
still positive but less emphatically so. Two out of three

Level of education
workers report that they often or almost always have the Post secondary (ISCED 4)

opportunity to do what they do best at work. Upper secondary (ISCED 3)

Lower secondary (ISCED 2)

Figure 10.6 indicates that broadly similar proportions of
Primary or lower (ISCED 0+1)
men and women consider their work to be intellectually

Occupational
demanding (just under 50% of both indicate that this is Blue-collar

type
often or almost always the case), while more women than White-collar

men find that their work imposes emotional demands. No contract

Employment
Temporary contract

status
Dissatisfaction with work Indefinite contract

Given the high levels of overall satisfaction with working Self-employed

conditions reported in the survey, it is worthwhile
Public sector

Sector
concentrating on the minority of workers actively
Private sector
dissatisfied with work and see how these are distributed
Women 50+
according to standard background variables (age, sex,
employment status, education etc.) Men 50+
Age band / sex

Women 30–49
In general, men, particularly younger men, report higher
Men 30–49
levels of job dissatisfaction than do women. By
occupational type, white-collar workers report less Women 15–29

dissatisfaction than do blue-collar workers. Public-sector Men 15–29

workers are less dissatisfied than their private-sector 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

counterparts and, among employees, those with an not very satisfied not at all satisfied
indefinite-term contract have higher levels of satisfaction
with their working conditions than their fixed-term or Figure 10.8: Satisfaction with working conditions, by
temporary-agency counterparts (grouped under ‘Temporary’ sector (%)
in Figure 10.7).
Agriculture

There is a clear relationship between the educational level Hotels and restaurants

attained by respondents and their satisfaction with working Manufacturing

conditions: lower levels of educational attainment are
Construction
associated with higher levels of job dissatisfaction. It is also
Transport and communication
the case that higher levels of education are associated with
EU27
greater work satisfaction: 51% of workers with an advanced
third-level degree (ISCED 63) report being ‘very satisfied’ Public administration and defence

compared to an average of 25% for the sample as a whole. Wholesale and retail trade

Education
It should be emphasised that in most categories less than
one in five workers declare themselves to be ‘not very Health

satisfied’ or ‘not at all satisfied’ with their work. It is true Other services
that blue-collar workers, workers with a lower secondary Electricity, gas and water
level of education or less, those holding temporary or fixed-
Real estate
term contracts and male workers under 30 years of age
Financial intermediation
report higher levels of dissatisfaction; however, even in
these groups, the proportion of dissatisfied workers is 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

around one in four or lower. very satisfied satisfied not very satisfied not at all satisfied

3
ISCED (International Standard Classification of Education) is a classification system designed by UNESCO in the early 1970s to serve ‘as an instrument
suitable for assembling, compiling and presenting statistics of education both within individual countries and internationally’.

80
 Satisfaction with working conditions

There is a contrast between high satisfaction levels in at risk or affected by their work. As Figure 10.9 shows,
predominantly office-based service sectors (such as workers who report that their work affects their health and
financial intermediation and real estate) and low levels in that their health and safety is at risk in their workplace are
traditional, non-service sectors. In particular, there are much more likely to be dissatisfied in their work than those
notably high levels of job dissatisfaction in the agriculture who do not consider their health to be affected or at risk.
and fishing sectors, where overall sectoral retrenchment
may contribute to such dissatisfaction, in combination with Figure 10.10: Work satisfaction and cognitive demands
other negative work aspects identified elsewhere in this (%)
report – long working hours and high levels of physical risk
100
exposure (see Figure 10.8).
90
80
Key determinants of work satisfaction
70
Various work-related factors impact on reported levels of 60

satisfaction with working conditions. Long or non-standard 50

working hours, high levels of work intensity, low levels of 40

30
job control and exposure to physical or psychological risks
20
(with the associated negative effects on health) all tend to
10
be linked to lower levels of satisfaction. By contrast, greater 0
autonomy over how work is carried out and greater High level of High–medium Medium Low–medium Low level of
job content cognitive demands
intellectual demands (without excessive pressure or work
very satisfied satisfied not very satisfied not at all satisfied
intensity) tend to be associated with high levels of
satisfaction with working conditions.
Note: The level of job content is a composite variable (Cronbach’s alpha 0.64)
An important indicator of work satisfaction is the extent to based on the average scores for Q23c (job involves solving unforeseen
which respondents consider that their health and safety are problems on your own), Q23d (monotonous tasks – reverse coded), Q23e
(complex tasks) and Q23f (learning new things).

Figure 10.9: Satisfaction with working conditions, by

extent of health outcomes (%) Jobs that involve solving unforeseen problems, performing
complex tasks and learning new things are associated with
Perception of higher levels of work satisfaction (see Figure 10.10). In this
health at risk +
health affected case, level of job content may just be one of a number of
contributing factors to greater work satisfaction. Jobs that
Perception of
health not at risk make more sophisticated intellectual demands tend to be
+ not affected
associated with higher educational qualifications and also
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
with higher levels of pay, both of which independently
very satisfied satisfied not very satisfied not at all satisfied correlate with greater work satisfaction.

81
 Income and payment systems
Although not directly related to conditions of work, pay is
still a crucial element in understanding and explaining
working conditions. The link between pay and work is
obvious: the employment contract is an exchange of labour
(and time) for money. Because pay is essentially a reward
for work carried out, some sort of relationship between pay
and working conditions can be expected.
In this sense, pay plays an indirect but very important role
in the fourth European Working Conditions Survey. While
the survey does not focus directly on labour income (there
are other statistical sources specifically designed for this),1
income is one of the most important secondary variables. In
earlier chapters, income has been used for that purpose, as
an independent or secondary variable. This chapter
concentrates on what findings from the survey regarding
income reveal about aspects such as the gender pay gap.
11
have the same relative position in their labour market as
someone positioned in the lower band in Ireland, despite
differences in absolute income.
Figure 11.1 shows the proportion of respondents in each
income band in the EU, differentiating for employees and
the self-employed. Each of the income bands roughly
corresponds to 10% of the respondents. However, income
bands work much better for employees than for the self-
employed whose earnings are much more difficult to
measure: the self-employed show a much more polarised
distribution of income than the employees, with more
people both at the top and at the bottom end of the scale.
Figure 11.1: Distribution of income, by employment
type, EU27 (%)

Measuring pay in the survey

Employees
It is always difficult to collect information about pay,
especially in international surveys. Very often (although not
equally often in all countries) people are quite reluctant to
Self-employed
declare their earnings; even if this reluctance can be
overcome, the complexity and divergence of pay systems in
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
different countries means that the problem of defining a Lowest income band Highest income band

common, comparable base remains. In order to take this

into account, a new approach to measuring pay was
introduced. In the fourth European Working Conditions
Survey, pay was measured by asking the respondents to
position their usual monthly earnings in their main paid job
on a 10-point scale corresponding to the 10 income deciles
in each country. Then they were asked about the
components (fixed and variable) of their labour income, in
order to take into account the variability of pay systems.2
In taking this approach, the intention is to have information
on income which is both meaningful in the national context
and easy to compare at the European level; moreover, this
approach has the advantage of providing both relative and
absolute information about the labour earnings of the
respondent. Because the income bands used roughly
correspond to the distribution of income broken down into
10 parts (deciles), the results should provide roughly
comparable income groups: for example, someone
positioned in the lower income band in Portugal would
Determinants of pay in the EU
Pay is generally used in this report as a secondary variable:
the analysis shows how pay relates to other issues, such as
working time or position in an organisation. However, it is
also interesting to look at pay as the dependent variable
and try to explain its determinants.
The measure does not study monthly pay directly: rather,
the position of individuals in the wage structure of their
country is analysed. 3 In order to simplify the interpretation
of results, the income variable has been transformed from
a 10-point to a 3-point scale. This means that respondents
are classified according to whether they are in the bottom,
middle or top third of the population in their country, in
terms of the earnings received from their main paid job. The
aim of this analysis is to explain what determines the
probability (or risk) of falling in the bottom, middle or top
third of the income scale.

1
For example, the European Earnings Structure Survey, carried out by national statistical institutes under the umbrella of Eurostat.
2
For a more detailed discussion about the methodology used for measuring earnings in the survey, see Annex 2. The methodology is further discussed in
Construction of income bands for the 4th European Working Conditions Survey, available online at http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/docs/ewco/4EWCS/
4EWCSincomebands.pdf
3
The survey is more suited to studying income from a relative than from an absolute perspective (as explained in the previous section); in addition, a relative
approach makes it easier to explore the determinants of income from a European perspective (relative positions are intrinsically comparable, whereas absolute
pay is nationally-specific).

83
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Deriving the income variable and its determinants

In order to study the determinants of pay, a multivariate statistical model was used. This means that each variable is controlled
by all the others so that the individual impact of each variable can be assessed. For instance, the gap between pay for men and
women appears bigger than it actually is, a large proportion of the gap being due to the greater take-up of part-time work by
women (who earn less because they work fewer hours). To properly examine the impact of one specific variable on pay, the effect
of other variables such as part-time status has to be controlled for. This is done in Table 11.1, using a multinomial logistic regression
model. The table includes two types of determinants: job-related and individual-related determinants.

Table 11.1: The determinants of pay in EU27, employees only

Odds pay low/medium Odds pay high/medium
Occupation Senior managers 0.32 ** 4.10 **
Professionals 0.28 ** 2.63 **
Technicians 0.48 ** 1.72 **
Clerical workers 0.57 ** 1.55 **
Service and sales workers 0.78 ** 1.42 **
Skilled workers 0.64 ** 1.10
Machine operators 0.55 ** 1.18
Unskilled workers (ref.) ref. ref.
Part-time Part-time 5.90 ** 0.67 **
Full-time (ref.) ref. ref.
Tenure (years) 0.96 ** 1.03 **
Job-related variables

Supervisory role Not supervisor (ref.) ref. ref.

Supervisor of fewer than 10 people 0.52 ** 1.50 **
Supervisor of more than 10 people 0.38 ** 2.85 **
Sector Agriculture 1.69 ** 1.20
Manufacturing and utilities (ref.) ref. ref.
Construction 0.44 ** 1.02
Retail and other services 1.05 0.98
Transport and communication 0.70 ** 1.21 *
Real estate and financial intermediation 0.92 1.35 **
Public administration and defence 0.93 1.42 **
Education and health 0.85 0.77 **
Size of company Micro enterprise (fewer than 10 employees.) (ref.) ref. ref.
Small enterprise (10–49 employees) 0.64 ** 1.15 *
Medium enterprise (50–249 employees) 0.64 ** 1.09
Large enterprise (250+ employees) 0.58 ** 1.41 **
Type of contract Not indefinite-term 1.50 ** 0.69 **
Indefinite-term (ref.) ref. ref.
Sex Female 2.55 ** 0.43 **
Male (ref.) ref. ref.
characteristics
Individual

Education Primary or no education (ISCED 0–1) (ref.) ref. ref.

Lower secondary education(ISCED 2) 0.94 1.40 *
Upper secondary education (ISCED 3) 0.69 ** 1.84 **
Post-secondary (ISCED 4) 0.47 ** 1.77 **
Tertiary education (ISCED 5–6) 0.38 ** 3.73 **

Note: *significant at 5%; ** significant at 1%; Nagelkerke’s pseudo r2 = 0.46

The interpretation of a multinomial logit model is not straightforward. Essentially, the coefficients in the table show how the
variables in the table affect the odds that the individual falls into the low-pay or high-pay categories (with the middle category
as a reference). To read the coefficients, each of them has to be compared with the reference category (indicated by ref.) For
instance, the odds that a part-time worker falls into the bottom category are 5.9 times higher than the odds for a full-time worker
doing so: this shows that part-time work is one of the main determinants for falling into the low-pay category in the EU.
Coefficients below 1 indicate lower probabilities than the reference category: for instance, the odds that those with university
education will fall into the lower income category are 0.38, compared to the odds for those with primary or no education (the
reference category) doing so. The pseudo r2 statistic indicates that overall the model explains around half the variability of the
dependent variable, and the asterisks indicate the statistical significance of each coefficient.

84
 Income and payment systems

The statistical model (described in the text box opposite)
shows that variables related to the type of job have the
strongest impact on the relative position of the respondent
in the income scale. The most important determinants are
occupation and employment status. Occupation has a
strong impact: managers and professionals have a much
greater chance of being in the highest pay category and a
much smaller chance of falling into the lowest category than
the other occupations. By contrast, having a part-time job is
likely to put a respondent into the lower pay category; it
also means that they are very unlikely to make it into the
top third of the income scale. Other variables with a
substantial impact on pay are length of job tenure and
supervisory role. The impacts of sector, company size and
type of contract are less important, but still significant.
After job-related variables, coefficients related to
sociodemographic variables are included. Age is not
introduced in the model because it is already indirectly
covered by years of tenure (so adding age does not increase
the explanatory power of the model). It is interesting to note
that the sex of the respondent still has a strong impact on
the income position, even after controlling for all the other
variables in the model. That means that a woman still has
a significantly higher chance of falling into the lower income
category and a significantly lower chance of falling into the
high income category than does a man with a similar
occupation, employment status, tenure, etc. This can be
contrasted with previous analyses of the gender pay gap,
which are based on estimating the difference in absolute
pay for two people who have exactly the same job but are
of different sex. Such ‘pay gaps’ are usually smaller than
the difference found in this model, which also includes the
‘position gap’, the dependent variable being a measure of
the respondent’s relative position in the income distribution
of the country. The model is therefore very sensitive to the
fact that women tend to have lower-paid jobs, even if those
jobs have similar characteristics to those occupied by men.
The relationship between education and pay is indirect: a
respondent’s educational level affects their chances of
having a particular occupation, which then determines pay.
Having a university degree, however, is still one of the most
important predictors for falling into the top third of the
income scale.
All of the above analysis concerns employees only. For the
self-employed, the measure of earnings is much less precise
and reliable (see Figure 11.2). The survey therefore provides
only information on the distribution of income for different
sectors and sizes of establishment. This shows that the
agricultural sector has a very different profile of self-
employment than all the other sectors, with a much lower
monthly income. Transport and other services also show
lower-than-average pay. In contrast, it appears that those
who are self-employed in manufacturing and in real estate
are more likely to be in the top income levels. There is also
a clear relationship between the size of establishment in

Figure 11.2: Income levels of the self-employed, by sector and size of establishment, EU27 (%)

Agriculture
Manufacturing
Electricity, gas and water*
Construction
Wholesale and retail trade
Hotels and restaurants
Transport and communication
Financial intermediation*
Real estate
Public administration and defence*
Education*
Health
Other services

One-person company
Micro enterprise (2–9 employees)
Small enterprise (10–49 employees)
Medium enterprise (50–249 employees)
Large enterprise (250+ employees)*
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Lowest income band Highest income band

*Not enough data available

85
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

which a self-employed person works and their average Figure 11.4: Gender differences in pay, by full-time/
monthly earnings: the bigger the establishment, the higher part-time status, by country group (%)
the earnings.
Men

Part time
Women

DK, NL, FI, SE

Gender and pay
Analysing the differences between the relative pay of men Men

Full time
Women
and women in different country groups produces some
striking results. Figure 11.3 shows the percentage of men Men

Part time
and women in each of the three earnings groups (bottom, Women

IE, UK
middle and top third of the scale). In all country groups
Men

Full time
(except for the acceding countries), around half of all
Women
women are positioned in the bottom third of the scale. In
most cases only around 20% of men occupy this position, Men

Part time
BE, DE, FR, LU, AT
whereas they are clearly overrepresented in the top third of Women

the scale. This is partly due to the fact that women are much
Men

Full time
more likely to work part time, and part-time workers (also Women
included in the figure) are disproportionately represented
Part time Men
in the bottom third of the pay scale.
EL, ES, IT, CY, MT, PT

Women
Figure 11.4 also shows findings for gender-related pay in
Men
Full time

different country groups: however, it differentiates between

Women
full-time and part-time status. It becomes clear that the
position of women lower down the income scale is in part
Part time

Men
HU, PL, SI, SK
CZ, EE, LV, LT,

due to their higher take-up of part-time work: within part- Women

time work, the differences in wages for male and female

Men
Full time

workers are relatively small. However, when full-time Women

employment is studied, the wage gap between men and
Full time Part time

women is still very important, almost as big as the wage gap Men
AC2: BG, RO

Women
before part-time status was controlled for. For all country
groups, women are particularly underrepresented in the top Men
third of the income scale. Women

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

lower pay bracket middle pay bracket upper pay bracket

Figure 11.3: Gender differences in pay, by country
group (%)
Note: Part-time status is controlled for. Findings apply only to employees.

Men
DK, NL,
FI, SE Women
Components of pay
Men
IE, UK Women
The fourth European Working Conditions Survey also
provides an overview of the different pay systems in
Men
BE, Europe, by analysing the findings concerning the different
DE, FR, Women
LU, AT components of pay. This information derives from a
EL, ES, Men question (Question EF6) that asks the respondents what
IT, CY, Women
MT, PT elements are included in the remuneration of their main
CZ, EE, Men paid job: for example, basic fixed salary, piece rate or
LV, LT, HU, Women
PL, SI, SK
productivity payments, payment for overtime or Sunday
AC2: Men
work, compensation for poor/dangerous working
BG, RO Women conditions, payment from financial participation schemes,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 etc.
lower pay bracket middle pay bracket upper pay bracket
Figure 11.5 shows the overall results of this indicator, for
EU27 employees. In the vast majority of cases (more than
Note: Findings apply only to employees.

86
 Income and payment systems

Figure 11.5: Components of pay, EU27 (%)
Basic fixed salary / wage
Piece rate / productivity pay
Extra pay for overtime
Extra pay for bad
working conditions
Extra pay for Sundays
Other extra pay
Profit sharing / company
Profit sharing / group
Shares in company
Advantages of other sort
Other
0 10
Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy and Slovenia. Extra pay
for poor working conditions is relatively rare except in
Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia. Finally,
Finland, Slovakia and Sweden stand out in terms of extra
pay for Sunday work. It is difficult to find a clear pattern in
terms of the groups of countries making use of any
particular type of extra pay; this probably reflects the fact
that extra pay components are more directly determined by
the economic sector in which the establishment operates
than by national socio economic models.
Finally, Figure 11.8 shows the percentage of employees in
different countries whose pay includes some form of
participation in company profits or shares in their
companies. Compared to the previous indicators, the
percentages in this case are much lower. The most common
form of financial participation is company profit-sharing,
whereby employees share in the profits of the company in
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
which they work. Profit-sharing is quite common in

Note: Findings apply to employees only. Figure 11.6: Fixed and piece rate/productivity pay, by
country (%)
95%), there is a basic fixed component in pay. In more than
SK
half of the cases, however, employees’ pay includes some
IT
variable component. The most common variable
EE
components of pay are also the most traditional: extra pay LT
for overtime (which is an element of pay for roughly one CZ
third of employees) and other forms of extra pay. Piece RO
rate/productivity payment is relatively uncommon in the SI
EU27 as a whole: just around 12% of employees have such FI
a pay component. Forms of employee participation in LV
company profits or shares are even less common, not BG

reaching 10% overall. PT

AT
There are important differences between countries, as a ES
look at the distribution of each variable in different HU
countries shows. Figure 11.6 shows the prevalence of fixed- PL
pay and variable pay components (piece rate or BE
productivity pay). Again, the predominance of a fixed salary DK
in all countries is clear: only in the Baltic States, Bulgaria DE

and Romania does the proportion of employees without a EL

fixed pay component approach 20%. As for piece rate or MT

productivity components of pay, the variation between IE

different countries is quite large: they are relatively common SE

in most eastern European countries, but in most of the LU

EU15 the proportion of workers with piece rate/productivity FR

pay components is almost negligible. Only in Finland and UK

Italy is it a significant component. CY

NL

Figure 11.7 shows the distribution of different types of extra 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

pay. Overtime pay is the most widely used extra component
basic fixed salary/wage piece rate / productivity pay
of pay, being paid to at least 20% of the employees in all
countries, except Lithuania. It is particularly common in Note: Findings apply to employees only.

87
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Figure 11.7: Extra pay components, by country (%) In general, the findings for financial participation from this
Overtime Sunday work Working conditions Other survey are consistent with previous research carried out by
CZ 50.4 CZ 21.4 CZ 19.9 CZ 33.2 the Foundation, with some qualifications. 4 This survey
SK 39.7 SK 27.8 SK 15.8 SK 33.9 found the general levels of financial participation to be
SI 45.1 SI 20.8 SI 14.7 SI 19.5 lower, but this probably reflects the fact that previous
AT 43.6 AT 17.1 AT 17.6 AT 31.5
research was based on a sample of large companies only, in
SE 35.5 SE 33.4 SE 3.9 SE 13.4
which financial participation is much more common;
IT 48.7 IT 14.5 IT 9.0 IT 19.4
moreover, it surveyed companies, rather than individual
MT 37.1 MT 22.2 MT 9.1 MT 20.4
workers (not necessarily all workers within a company will
LU 38.9 LU 17.0 LU 7.2 LU 46.6
have access to financial participation systems, even if they
DK 34.8 DK 20.2 DK 5.4 DK 22.9
exist). The results from the fourth European Working
FI 28.1 FI 25.0 FI 3.5 FI 39.9
Conditions Survey indicate that financial participation is
EE 33.2 EE 16.9 EE 5.7 EE 30.5
very rarely used as a component of pay in most European
EL 27.5 EL 16.4 EL 11.2 EL 34.6
countries
FR 30.6 FR 13.2 FR 9.4 FR 40.9

NL 34.0 NL 16.1 NL 1.2 NL 22.3

Figure 11.8: Forms of employee participation in profits
IE 31.8 IE 16.5 IE 2.4 IE 17.3
and shares (%)
DE 26.6 DE 9.6 DE 8.3 DE 23.7
Company profit-sharing Group profit-sharing Company shares
RO 25.8 RO 9.6 RO 7.0 RO 29.7
SK 29.5 SK 19.1 SK 2.3
HU 26.9 HU 10.1 HU 4.0 HU 14.4
SI 19.0 SI 14.9 SI 2.9
PL 22.9 PL 8.9 PL 9.1 PL 25.1
FR 14.4 FR 8.2 FR 5.5
UK 28.4 UK 9.9 UK 2.4 UK 10.7
LU 13.7 LU 7.6 LU 3.9
BE 21.3 BE 13.0 BE 6.3 BE 25.8
NL 17.0 NL 6.6 NL 1.0
PT 26.0 PT 8.3 PT 5.7 PT 10.7
SE 15.6 SE 6.4 SE 2.0
BG 18.7 BG 10.0 BG 9.2 BG 21.6
CZ 12.7 CZ 8.8 CZ 2.3
ES 23.8 ES 8.2 ES 4.0 ES 37.0
FI 12.8 FI 9.9 FI 1.0
CY 21.4 CY 9.7 CY 3.3 CY 10.3
EE 11.0 EE 9.9 EE 2.6
LV 18.1 LV 7.8 LV 6.1 LV 23.9
IE 10.6 IE 6.2 IE 5.7
LT 15.3 LT 5.8 LT 5.0 LT 18.8
LV 10.3 LV 5.9 LV 0.8
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
BG 7.6 BG 4.8 BG 2.6

BE 6.6 BE 2.7 BE 4.1

Note: Findings apply to employees only.
DK 7.2 DK 3.2 DK 2.8

UK 6.9 UK 2.9 UK 3.0

Slovakia (where almost 30% of employees are involved), LT 5.0 LT 4.5 LT 1.6
and relatively common in France, Luxembourg, the AT 6.9 AT 1.9 AT 1.4
Netherlands, Slovenia and Sweden. Company profit- PL 6.1 PL 2.8 PL 0.6
sharing is very rare in most southern European countries DE 5.8 DE 2.7 DE 0.7
and in Hungary and Romania. Group-profit sharing, in IT 4.5 IT 3.2 IT 0.8
general, is less common, but the patterns are essentially the ES 5.8 ES 2.1 ES 0.2
same as for company-profit sharing. RO 4.4 RO 1.8 RO 1.8

EL 3.1 EL 2.9 EL 1.4

The other important form of financial participation is MT 3.9 MT 2.2 MT 0.7

equity-sharing, which means that employees actually own HU 2.5 HU 1.9 HU 0.8

PT 2.1 PT 1.9 PT 1.1

part of the company. This form of financial participation is
CY 2.2 CY 0.1 CY 1.2
much rarer: only 5% of employees in France and Ireland
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
engage in it. In Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia,
Slovenia and the UK, around 3% of employees receive
Note: Findings apply to employees only.
shares in their companies. In all other countries, the figure
is even lower.

4
See Financial participation in the EU: Indicators for benchmarking, available online at http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0480.htm

88
 Income and payment systems

Non-response to the question on earnings

Normally the issue of non-response to a question is of interest only to methodologists; sometimes, however, the non-response can
hide information that is as interesting as the results of the actual responses themselves. One of the best examples of this is non-
response to the income question. Questions about income in surveys routinely have much lower response rates than any other
question, as people tend to be reluctant to provide information about how much they earn. Interestingly, however, this does not
hold true for all European countries: the percentage of people refusing to disclose their earnings varies more between countries
than do many of the other variables studied in this report. Figure 11.9 shows the variation of non-response to the question on
income in all the countries covered by the survey. In some countries (particularly Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries, but
also Germany, Switzerland and Turkey), the level of non-response is almost negligible (around or below 5%). In other countries,
however, more than one in four respondents is not willing to disclose their income (particularly in Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy
and the UK).

Figure 11.9: Non-response to question on earnings, by country (%)

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
UK AT IT CZ FR BE PT ES EU27 EE SK HR PL SI EL HU LU BG RO LT MT IE NL LV CH DE NO CY FI DK TR SE

Occupation and employment status also makes a substantial difference to the level of non-response. On average, 16% of
respondents did not answer this question; however, this rose to 24% in the case of senior managers and 21% for the self-employed.
Men are slightly more reluctant to disclose their pay than are women (a non-response rate that is 4 percentage points higher) and
older workers are considerably less keen on reporting their income than are younger workers (a difference of almost 10 percentage
points). Sector does not appear to make any difference.

89

Understanding the conditions under which people work
across the different EU Member States and other European
countries is central to achieving improved quality of work,
greater productivity and increased employment – the Lisbon
objectives in the employment domain. The Foundation’s
European Working Conditions Survey presents the views of
workers on a wide range of issues including work
organisation, working time, equal opportunities, training,
health and well-being and job satisfaction. With its five-year
cycle, the survey represents an effective means of tracking
over time the impact of crucial issues and events: EU
enlargement, the ageing workforce and pressures associated
with an ever-increasing pace of life.
In this, the fourth European Working Conditions Survey, the
results show that despite the dramatic changes seen in
Europe’s workforce over the last five years, triggered by the
accession of 10 new Member States, the increase in non-
traditional forms of employment such as part-time and
temporary work, and greater numbers of women entering
the labour market, working conditions have remained
relatively stable on average throughout the EU.
Overall, the findings highlight the fact that most European
workers (over 80%) are satisfied with their working
conditions and are happy with their work–life balance. Job
satisfaction is largely associated with job security, a positive
working atmosphere and good opportunities to learn and
grow.
Feeding information on these issues of key importance into
the debate at European and national level is a key element
of the Foundation’s activities. In an effort to do this
effectively, the Foundation has, in recent years, focused its
research and information activities in the area of working
conditions and employment on four main policy areas:
ensuring career and employment security; maintaining the
health and well-being of workers; developing skills and
competencies; and reconciling work–life balance. The main
conclusions of the survey’s findings are also presented in
this way below.
Ensuring career and employment security
The current policy objectives reinforce the key role that
work plays in the lives of European citizens. Under this
heading, the report looks at access and conditions of
employment, status, salary and rights atached to work.
Participation rates are high on the political agenda.
Therefore, it is important to look at the issue of changing
demographics. The survey results highlight the fact that
with the gradual ageing of Europe’s population, many
European countries will lose around 15% of their workforce
to retirement in the next 10 years. The substantial
91
Conclusions 12
proportions of workers (16%) in the 40–54 years and older
age group indicates a significant ongoing policy challenge,
particularly for Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and
Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian
countries. The results also underline the importance of
improving and developing working conditions to enable
older workers to remain in the workforce for as long as
possible and to facilitate the career trajectory of younger
workers.
The survey results also show that while women have
increased their participation in the workforce, they still lag
behind men: more women are moving into managerial roles
but the gender pay gap still exists, with women still more
likely than men to be found in the lower income groups.
This highlights the continuing challenges to the equal
opportunities objectives. In the EU27, more men than
women are in employment and many sectors are still largely
dominated by one sex. Women account for the majority of
workers in health, education, other services, hotels and
restaurants and the wholesale and retail trade. These four
sectors employ more than half of all women in employment.
Therefore it is clear that any changes in the working
conditions in these sectors would have a considerable
impact on the quality of work and employment for women.
In terms of pay differences, the survey reveals that
occupation, gender and employment status (whether people
work full or part time) are the most important determinants.
Part-time workers, workers on temporary contracts, and
workers in the agricultural sector are more likely to fall into
the lower income categories, while senior officials,
managers or professionals, and persons in a supervisory
capacity are most likely to belong to the higher income
categories.
Maintaining the health and well-being of
workers
In terms of health and well-being, the results show that a
declining proportion (35%) of European workers considers
their health and safety at risk because of their work,
although workers in the NMS report significantly higher
levels than those in the EU15. The most often reported
health symptoms are musculoskeletal disorders (backache
and muscular pains), followed by fatigue, stress, headaches
and irritability. Other symptoms such as problems with
eyesight, hearing and skin, and respiratory problems are all
reported by fewer than 10% of workers. The people who
report that their health is affected by work usually report
between two and six symptoms.
The proportion of the European workforce employed in
traditional, physically demanding sectors such as
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey
manufacturing and agriculture is declining; however, the
proportion of workers reporting repetitive hand or arm
movements (the most commonly cited physical risk) has
increased overall. Again, the gender differences are
apparent, with women more exposed than men to some
risks, and vice versa. Although the findings show that
violence at work remains relatively limited, it is most
common in sectors where women constitute the majority of
the workforce.
Underlining the need for a better understanding of the role
of work organisation in this area, the findings show that
work intensity is clearly on the increase, with rising
numbers working at high speed and to tight deadlines: one
quarter of all workers reports having to work at very high
speed all or nearly all of the time. Nevertheless workers’
autonomy levels are high, although the results show that
levels of autonomy are not increasing.
Developing skills and competencies
Promoting and encouraging lifelong learning has become
one of the EU’s key policy objectives. It is also central to
the life-course approach that looks at flexible working
initiatives and corresponding social security arrangements
as part of the flexicurity debate.
In terms of skills and training, the report shows that a
majority of workers report that work is interesting and offers
new opportunities to learn, although access to training has
not improved. This is particularly the case for older and less
qualified workers, highlighting a deficit in progress towards
the life long learning objective.
The survey results also show that one of the most important
changes in the workplace is the increasing use of
information technology. Computer use has risen
considerably across Europe and younger workers use
computers twice as much as older workers. Around 26% of
workers now work with computers all, or almost all, of the
time; in 1990, the equivalent figure was around 13%.
Moreover, people clearly link the use of the new technology
92
to better career prospects. However, a sizeable proportion of
workers still never use internet or email.
Alongside these dimensions, it is important to highlight that
the survey provides the possibility of assessing how work
in itself is changing; it is becoming, possibly less rapidly
than expected, more knowledge and technology based and
is developing a stronger customer orientation.
Reconciling work–life balance
With the objective of increasing women’s participation in
the workforce high on the agenda and against the backdrop
of an ageing population, it is important to reflect on the
duration, times and predictability of work with a view to
ensuring a more positive work–life balance for both women
and men. The findings show, however, that even women
working part time work more hours in total than men
working full time, taking into account other tasks related to
caring, household duties, etc. Furthermore, the perceived
increase in implementation of flexible working hours is not
as widespread as it would appear: on the contrary, in most
instances, working schedules are still fixed by companies
and while part-time work is increasing, the proportion of
workers with atypical schedules remains low.
A large majority of workers are satisfied with their work–life
balance. Since 1991, there has been a steady reduction in
the length of the EU working week – a trend that changed
in 2005 following the accession of the NMS, where average
working hours are longer. It is interesting to note that
work–life balance is perceived most positively by those
working regular and predictable schedules.
Placing the key findings of the fourth European Working
Conditions Survey in this policy context again highlights the
pertinence of this survey in charting the trends of working
conditions and employment in an enlarged Europe over the
last 15 years, to provide timely and comprehensive
information for policymakers as they shape the future of
working and, indeed, living conditions throughout Europe.

The European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) is carried
out by the European Foundation for the Improvement of
Living and Working Conditions, an autonomous EU agency
with a tripartite Governing Board based in Dublin. Gallup
Europe was contracted by the Foundation to carry out the
fieldwork of the EWCS 2005.
Between 19 September and 30 November 2005, the
Foundation carried out its fourth European Working
Conditions Survey. Almost 30,000 European workers were
interviewed in 31 countries (all EU25 Member States plus
Bulgaria, Croatia, Norway, Romania, Turkey and
Switzerland), answering more than 100 items on a wide
range of issues regarding their employment situation and
working conditions. This provides a unique source of
information on the conditions of work in different European
countries and a source which is entirely comparable (the
same questionnaire was used in all countries covered). It
also allows for analysis of the current situation in the
context of the last 15 years as this is the fourth time this
survey has been conducted.
The previous surveys were carried out in 1991, 1995 and
2000 (including the candidate countries, now the new
Member States, in 2001). The number of questions and
issues covered has increased with each subsequent survey,
but a core of key questions remained the same, in order to
study trends in working conditions. The development of the
survey reflects also the development of the EU itself: from
covering only 12 countries in 1991, it covered 15 in 1995
and 2000 (extended to cover the 10 former candidate
countries in 2001), to 25 EU countries plus four acceding
and candidate countries and two members of the European
Free Trade Association in 2005.
Preparation of the fourth survey included the review of the
EWCS statistical production process and the design of a
strict quality assurance framework relying on current best
methods. The production process was examined, sub
processes identified, actors’ roles described, performance
targets fixed and performance indicators selected and
monitored. The quality assurance framework has guided the
implementation of the fourth survey. Quality control was
performed by internal and external agents. A minimum of
10% of interviews and 10% of routes have been checked in
each country.
93
Annex 1: Survey methodology
Questionnaire design and translation process
The questionnaire, in common with previous editions of the
EWCS, was developed in close cooperation with the expert
questionnaire development group (see Annex 4). This group
was composed of representatives of the national institutes
that carry out this type of survey at national level, members
of the tripartite Governing Board of the Foundation
(employer associations, trade unions and governments), the
European Commission and other EU bodies (Eurostat, the
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work),
international organisations (OECD, ILO), as well as leading
European experts in the field of working conditions and
survey methodology. While the priority was to retain trend
questions in order to preserve and extend the time series, a
certain number of new areas were identified where the
survey’s scope could be usefully extended (access to
training, work engagement and commitment, job security,
the collective dimension of work, the blurring boundaries
of work and non-work life). New questions introduced were,
where possible, based on existing questions already
successfully used in other similar national surveys. In the
case of certain background demographic variables,
including highest completed education level, net monthly
job income and household composition, more extensive
question formulations were developed in order to create
richer future analytical possibilities. Out of the 63 questions
contained in the questionnaire, 31 are unchanged, 26 are
modified and six are new.
The questionnaire was translated into 27 different
languages, with nine of these used in more than one
country. The translation process implemented for the survey
was based on current good practice in the multilingual
translation of international survey questionnaires: for trend
questions, existing translations from previous surveys were
retained except in a small number of cases where problems
were identified and new revised translations introduced. For
new and modified questions, the English master version
was subject to parallel translation into the main target
languages by independent translators familiar with survey
research in the working conditions area. These parallel
translations were merged into a final draft which was then
translated back into English to identify and resolve
remaining problems or ambiguities. The majority of the
translations were also subject to final vetting by national
experts from the expert development questionnaire group
who assisted the Foundation in this task. In general, they
rated positively the quality of the individual translations
and in some cases proposed some important fine-tuning.
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Sampling design employees and self-employed were available (normally,

The sample of the EWCS is representative of the persons in
employment (employees and self-employed, according to
the Eurostat definition) during the fieldwork period in each
of the countries covered.1
In each country, the EWCS sample followed a multi-stage,
stratified and clustered design with a ‘random walk’
procedure for the selection of the respondents at the last
stage (except for Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden and
Switzerland, where the selection of the respondents was
made using a phone register). All interviews were conducted
face-to-face in the respondent’s own household.
The sampling design had the following stages:
1. Stratification of primary sampling units (PSUs)
according to region and urbanisation level: as is the
usual practice in face-to-face surveys, the interviews to
be conducted in each country were clustered in a
number of PSUs (each of them corresponding to a
‘random walk’ starting address) which were allocated to
geographic areas stratified by region2 and urbanisation
level.3 That is to say, in each country a table of
population by region and urbanisation level was
created, and the PSUs were allocated to the cells
according to the proportion of population in each cell.
in the evenings and weekends).
4. Selection of the interviewee within the household:
once a successful contact was achieved, the interviewer
had precise instructions to: first, identify how many
employed persons (according to the Eurostat definition)
inhabited the house; and second, whenever more than
one person in employment was identified, the person
whose birthday was the latest should be selected for the
interview.
In Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland, a
different procedure for the selection of the respondent was
followed. Previous experiences of ‘random walk’ surveys
had proven quite unsuccessful in these countries (with very
low response rates), so it was decided to use phone
directories to select the interviewees, randomly selecting
Table A1: Number of interviews (after quality control)
1009 600
1003 600
1134 1025
600 1000
1027 1000

1006 1053
2. Random selection of starting addresses within
each PSU: within each stratum, each PSU was 602 1024
randomly assigned an address from which the ‘random 1059 600
walk’ would start.
1083 1017

3. ‘Random walk’ procedure for the selection of the 1018 1059

household: starting from the assigned address, the 1001 1058
interviewer followed a strictly pre-defined procedure
1001
(‘random walk’) to select the households to contact for
interviewing.4 Once a household was selected, it could 1009 1011

not be substituted even if there was nobody at home, 1005 1000

until four attempts to contact the interviewer had been 1003 1040
unsuccessful (at different times and days). The ‘random
1017 1015
walks’ were scheduled at a time of the day when the

1
‘Employed persons are persons aged 15 and over, who during the reference week performed work, even for just one hour per week, for pay, profit or family
gain or were not at work but had a job or business from which they were temporarily absent because of, e.g., illness, holidays, industrial dispute and education
or training’ (Eurostat, Labour Force Survey: Concepts, Definitions and Classifications, 2005).
2
In principle, the definition of region was to follow the NUTS-2 European Standard definition. In practice, while this was the case in most countries, in some
cases NUTS-1 was used, as NUTS-2 was too detailed and implied an unrealistic sampling stratification.
3
Unfortunately, there is no homogeneous EU-comparable classification of urbanisation levels, so in each country the urbanisation category used for
stratification is different (in most cases, based in the categories used in the national census). It was decided that it was better to stratify according to some
urbanisation category even if it was not homogeneous, because it would lead to a better spread of the sample in the territory (within each region).
4
Basically, this procedure stated that, starting from the assigned address, the interviewer should select each third building to the left; if there was more than
one floor, to go to the third one; if there was more than one household in each floor, to select the third one starting from the left, etc. These strict and
cumbersome rules ensure a properly random selection of the households to be contacted.

94
 Annex 1: Survey methodology

from numbers within the strata defined in stage 1.5 This only
affected the method for the selection of the interviewee (that
is, Stages 2-5 of the sampling design), but not the logic for
the selection of the interviewees (employed persons
according to the Eurostat definition, randomly selected) or
the mode of interviewing (which was exactly the same, face-
to-face interviews in the household of the respondent). So
the resulting interviews are entirely comparable.
The target number of interviews was 1,000 in all countries
except Cyprus, Estonia, Luxembourg, Malta and Slovenia,
in which it was 600. The number of interviews actually
carried out in each country is summarised in Table A1.
Paper-and-pencil interviews (PAPI) were used in all
countries except in the Czech Republic, Denmark,
Germany, the Netherlands and Slovakia, where interviews
were collected using computer-assisted personal interviews
(CAPI).
Fieldwork outcome and response rates
The fieldwork was carried out from 17 September 2005 to
30 November, with different durations by country but an
average of seven weeks. The total number of interviewers
involved in the survey fieldwork was 2,745 who in total
visited 72,300 households, out of which 29,766 interviews
were actually carried out.
This means that more than 40,000 attempts at contacts or
interviews were not possible or unsuccessful. In general,
face-to-face surveys involving random walk tend to face
considerable (and increasing) difficulties in reaching the
respondent (not only because of refusals and no response,
but because of more mundane problems like difficulties in
accessing the building, empty households, etc). In the
fourth European Working Conditions Survey, it is important
to note an additional difficulty: once a successful contact
was made, the interviewer still had to select eligible
interviewees in the household according to a very strict
definition (the Eurostat definition of persons in
employment, which in some cases can be quite difficult to
apply to real-life situations, especially in less standard-
industrial types of employment such as agricultural work,
family business, etc.) which obviously increased the
number of unsuccessful visits.6
Table A2 shows the achieved response rates in the fourth
survey, calculated following the most widely accepted
standard definitions.7 The cooperation rate (coop3) is the
proportion of completed interviews to all eligible units ever
contacted.8 This shows that overall, two thirds of the eligible
respondents (that is, households in which there were
employed persons according to the Eurostat definition) that
were contacted did cooperate with the EWCS. The
proportion is quite similar (and high) in all countries except
for the cases in which phone screening procedures were
applied, which had a much lower response rate (it is
normally easier to refuse an interview by phone than at the
door of your household).
The contact rate measures the proportion of all contacted
households to all households eligible,9 and it is around 0.8
in all countries, with very small variations from country to
country except for the countries with phone screening
which again have a lower rate. The refusal rate (ref2)
measures the proportion of refusals to the total number of
potentially eligible cases.
The response rate (rr3) is calculated as the proportion of
completed interviews to the total number of eligible cases.10
The overall response rate of the fourth survey is 0.48, which
is a reasonable response rate for this type of survey. In most
countries, the response rates are around this average of 0.5
or above, with eight countries below a 0.4 response rate
(Belgium, Finland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland,
Slovenia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom). As
discussed above, three of the countries in which phone
screening was used for increasing response rates actually
have the lowest response rates of the overall survey
(Belgium, Netherlands and Switzerland), which indicates
that the attempt at increasing response rates was
disappointing (although it is not clear what the response
rates would have been had the random route been retained
even in these countries). The very low response rate in

5
In some countries, the phone registers did not allow the selection of individual phone numbers according to the geographic location, so the households were
matched to each of the strata after the first contact by phone.
6
Overall, there were almost 19,000 successfully contacted households in which there were no employed persons at all.
7
American Association for Public Opinion Research (2004), Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys, 3rd edition,
Lenexa, Kansas.
8
This ‘cooperation rate’ is very often reported as ‘response rate’, which is wrong according to the internationally agreed definitions. As we will see, the response
rate is the proportion of completed interviews relative to all eligible cases (not only the cases actually contacted). The ‘response rate’ reported in the third
European Working Conditions Survey was actually this ‘cooperation rate’.
9
The denominator includes in this case, apart from interviews (total and partial) and refusals, non-contacts, ‘others‘, and an estimation of the number of
potentially eligible cases from all cases in which the eligibility is unknown (an estimation which is based in the proportion of households with employed
persons in the households actually contacted).
10
The denominator of the formula is the same as in the contact rate.

95
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Table A2: Response rates

rate ration

rate ration
rate se

rate se
rate ct

rate ct
on

on
rate al

rate al
pe

pe
ta

ta
s

s
resp

resp
refu

refu
coo

coo
con

con
AAPOR code: coop3 con2 ref2 rr3 AAPOR code: coop3 con2 ref2 rr3

EWCS 2005 0.66 0.78 0.25 0.48

F2F sampling, overall 0.69 0.80 0.23 0.51
Telephone sampling 0.53 0.68 0.30 0.34 Malta 0.60 0.86 0.31 0.47
overall
Austria 0.71 0.88 0.25 0.61 Netherlands 0.44 0.66 0.35 0.28
Belgium 0.50 0.72 0.34 0.34 Poland 0.53 0.69 0.31 0.35
Czech Republic 0.84 0.85 0.13 0.69 Portugal 0.73 0.95 0.24 0.67
Cyprus 0.88 0.75 0.08 0.57 Slovenia 0.52 0.77 0.34 0.37
Denmark 0.66 0.70 0.21 0.42 Slovakia 0.81 0.79 0.14 0.58
Estonia 0.72 0.83 0.20 0.54 Spain 0.68 0.97 0.31 0.66
Finland 0.63 0.68 0.21 0.35 Sweden 0.63 0.80 0.28 0.47
France 0.74 0.81 0.20 0.58 United Kingdom 0.48 0.77 0.36 0.34
Germany 0.88 0.76 0.08 0.61
Greece 0.63 0.83 0.29 0.49 Bulgaria 0.75 0.91 0.21 0.65
Hungary 0.61 0.91 0.33 0.51 Croatia 0.61 0.77 0.29 0.45
Ireland 0.81 0.72 0.12 0.51 Romania 0.85 0.85 0.11 0.67
Italy 0.64 0.78 0.27 0.49 Turkey 0.88 0.78 0.09 0.64
Latvia 0.77 0.89 0.20 0.65
Lithuania 0.83 0.84 0.13 0.64 Norway 0.74 0.81 0.20 0.57
Luxembourg 0.41 0.88 0.46 0.32 Switzerland 0.59 0.59 0.22 0.32

Luxembourg is a usual outcome of door-to-door surveys in
this country. The three countries in which response rates
are lower than expected are Poland, Slovenia and the
United Kingdom.
2 Non-response (or post-stratification) weighting:
Weighting
In the fourth European Working Conditions Survey, three
types of weighting have been applied to the data in order to
enhance the representativity of results:
1 Selection probability weighting: the ‘random walk’
selects households and within households,
respondents. This has the unintended consequence of
giving more probability of selection to respondents living
in smaller households (in a one-person household, the
probability of being selected is 100%, whereas it falls to
50% in a two-person household, etc.). This has been
corrected by applying selection probability weights.11 In
order to have unbiased results, the data must always be
weighted by this selection probability weight.12
different types of eligible respondents have different
response rates, which can lead to biased estimations.
The usual way to minimise this effect is to generate a
weight that corrects the biased response rates for some
key variables, so that the bias is minimised. Obviously,
that requires knowing the real population figures for the
variables used for producing these non-response
weights: in this case, it was assumed that the figures of
the European Labour Force Survey (LFS) are the real
figures, to generate a weight that adjusts these results to
the results of the LFS for the following variables: sex,
age, region (NUTS-2), occupation (ISCO at 1 digit) and
sector (NACE at 1 digit). The method followed to
calculate these weights was the raking method, which
carries out an iterative process of estimation of the

11
Which simply means multiplying each case by the number of eligible persons (i.e. persons in employment) in the household.
12
The variable holding this weight in the dataset is ‘w1’.

96

weights that would be required for each case in order to
replicate with the survey data the marginals of the LFS
in terms of the weighting variables. This weight
incorporates the selection probability weight, and must
be always used when trying to make unbiased point
estimates.13
3 Cross-national weighting: this final step in the
weighting is applied in order to be able to do cross-
national estimations. The weights of all respondents in
each country are multiplied by the proportion that this
country represents in the total employed population in
the respective cross-national area. When trying to
estimate values for cross-national areas, the
corresponding cross-national weighting must be
applied.14
Limitations of the survey
The main objective of the fourth European Working
Conditions Suvey is to provide comparable information on
the conditions of work and employment of employed
persons in different EU countries. It is not aimed at studying
the situation in each country in depth. The sampling design
reflects these aims: with a sample of 1,000 interviews in
each country, the survey is not the correct statistical source
for making a detailed analysis of the working conditions of
specific groups within specific EU countries. What it can
provide is a reliable comparison of working conditions in
different EU countries, and when using data aggregated at
the EU or EU-region level, the survey can be used to carry
out detailed analysis of working conditions according to
different employment characteristics or sectors of activity.
The survey is a unique source of information in providing
strictly comparable data on working conditions at a
European level, but for carrying out detailed analysis in one
specific country, the reader should refer to the existing
national working conditions surveys.15
On a more general level, it should be noted that EU
averages often hide differences between countries and
sectors, and different paths of evolution. When looking at
the EU27 aggregates, the reader should bear in mind that
five countries in Europe account for more than half of
European workers and therefore strongly influence
averages: Germany (17%), United Kingdom (14%), France
(12%), Italy (11%) and Spain (9%). It is also important to be
aware that since the last time the survey was performed (in
2000), the EU has enlarged by 12 new Member States. This
13
The non-response weighting is held in variable ‘w4’ in the dataset.
14
There are various cross-national weights in the dataset, all starting by ‘w5’ and followed by the EU region covered.
15
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/surveys/index.htm.
97
Annex 1: Survey methodology
means that when considering differences between the last
two waves, readers should remember that the average now
reflects the inclusion of 12 new countries. The same goes
for differences between 1990-91 and 1995, the period
during which three new countries joined the European
Union: Austria, Finland and Sweden.
The European Working Conditions Suvery is a survey that
captures the working conditions of European workers as
they are perceived and reported by them. In some cases, the
information captured in the survey is quite factual, so that
the difference between perceived reality and reality can be
assumed to be only minor (such as in reported working
hours, or in employment status). In other cases, we are
asking the respondent to subjectively evaluate their
situation, so that the problem of perceived vs ‘real’ is simply
irrelevant. But there are some cases in which this might be
a real problem, such as those questions in which the
respondent is asked to report on a ‘factual’ aspect of work
which is very strongly affected by subjective evaluations:
some examples of these are the questions about health
outcomes of work, exposure to risks or the questions about
work intensity. Of course, this is not necessarily a weakness,
or a problem in itself: in most cases, it is the perceived
reality that has social effects, not reality itself (if a worker
perceives – correctly or not – that her job has a negative
impact on her health, she may change jobs or take frequent
sick leave). But it is important to have this qualification in
mind when interpreting the results.
Finally, it is also important to be cautious when interpreting
the results of an international survey: all international
surveys based in pre-coded interviews suffer from the
difficulties of translating the questions into different
languages, cultures and contexts, which always involves a
certain degree of misunderstanding. The EWCS is not an
exception to this: although the economic structures in
Europe are becoming more similar, and probably also the
conceptualisations of work, we are still quite far from a
homogeneous understanding of work throughout Europe.
The understanding of concepts such as ‘task’ or
‘harassment’ varies considerably between cultures and yet
in both cases they have been confronted with exactly the
same questions. There are several ways in which the
Foundation has tried to deal with this issue: firstly, by using
already validated questions (tested in previous surveys)
which are as factual as possible in their wording and scales;
secondly, by trying to develop the best possible translation
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

process, taking into account not only linguistic issues, but
also cultural and contextual ones;16 and thirdly, by
measuring complex phenomena (e.g. job intensity) using
several different questions, so that it is possible to cross-
check answers for (in)consistencies. But still, there are
certainly some limitations in the comparability of some of
the most complex concepts studied in this survey. At the
time of writing this report, a qualitative post-test on some of
the dimensions covered in the survey was being carried out
in five countries, in an effort to access some qualitative
information on these difficulties of understanding of the
questionnaire concepts in different countries.

16
For a detailed explanation of the questionnaire translation process in the survey, see: Questionnaire translation process in the 4th European Working Conditions
Survey, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/docs/ewco/4EWCS/4EWCStranslationprocess.pdf

98
 Annex 2: Calculation of income deciles

Giving the respondents a scale on which they can place
themselves tends to produce higher response rates than
enquiring directly about earnings. The problem facing
international surveys, however, is how to make the scales
meaningful in each country (by adapting them to the
national pay levels) but also comparable internationally.
The Foundation’s approach to this issue in the fourth
European Working Conditions Survey was to ensure that the
national 10-point scales roughly matched the real
distribution of earnings. Using Eurostat’s European
Earnings Structure Survey 2002, the earnings of each EU
country were divided into 10 bands (called ‘deciles’, each
representing 10% of the respondents), and ranked from low
to high.
Table A3 shows, for instance, that the lowest 10% of wage
earners in Denmark receives less than €2,018 in gross
wages per month, the second 10% receives between €2,018
and €2,359 per month, etc., up to the highest 10% of wage
earners, who earn more than €5,059 per month. This table
was then adjusted to indicate net, rather than gross,
earnings and the effects of inflation from 2002 to 2005 were
included. Finally, some figures were rounded (to make them
easier to read) and presented to the fieldwork institutes in
each country for consultation. The resulting national
income bands are shown in Table A4. In each country, the
respondents were asked to indicate in which band their
income lies.

Table A3: Structure of Earnings Survey 2002 – gross monthly earnings in EUR (deciles)

D10 D20 D30 D40 D50 D60 D70 D80 D90

AT 1027 1230 1411 1576 1745 1935 2166 2500 3153

BE 1551 1735 1880 2013 2155 2318 2541 2901 3600
CY 730 886 1020 1168 1349 1557 1830 2242 2941
CZ 264 317 362 405 450 498 556 632 773
DE 1330 1706 1969 2182 2395 2628 2926 3375 4209
DK 2018 2359 2620 2875 3138 3415 3751 4219 5059
EE 140 191 234 283 332 392 473 588 831
ES 741 855 957 1071 1216 1406 1639 1951 2558
FI 1513 1683 1826 1971 2123 2300 2523 2837 3363
FR 1184 1360 1546 1756 2005 2333 2783 3458 4690
EL 631 720 802 895 1017 1189 1424 1753 2277
HU 206 225 259 300 342 387 439 514 649
IE 1151 1444 1694 1964 2244 2577 2976 3545 4333
IT 1145 1270 1386 1508 1648 1819 2042 2357 2921
LT 125 143 173 211 255 303 362 436 569
LU 1543 1817 2061 2300 2542 2828 3219 3779 4762
LV 103 103 120 139 172 224 291 386 573
NL 1350 1631 1895 2106 2309 2540 2863 3267 3972
MT - - - - - - - - -
PL 259 322 378 433 493 561 645 761 988
PT 417 484 555 633 739 873 1061 1354 1781
SE 1747 1910 2039 2169 2308 2476 2707 3065 3835
SI 450 526 620 713 821 946 1096 1319 1770
SK 173 213 247 277 307 341 384 447 558
UK 1310 1549 1800 2069 2379 2762 3246 3869 4941

99
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Table A4: Bands for the income question in the fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Currency D10 D20 D30 D40 D50 D60 D70 D80 D90

AT EUR 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1700
BE EUR 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1300 1600
CY CYP 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1300 1700
CZ CZK 7800 9500 10600 11700 12800 14400 15500 18200 21500
DE EUR 800 1000 1100 1150 1250 1350 1500 1700 2000
DK DKK 9000 10500 11500 12500 13500 14500 16000 18000 21000
EE EEK 1750 2500 3000 3500 4250 5000 6000 7500 10000
ES EUR 600 650 700 750 850 950 1100 1300 1700
FI EUR 600 750 910 1020 1100 1200 1340 1520 1890
FR EUR 800 900 950 1050 1200 1350 1600 2000 2500
EL EUR 450 500 550 600 700 800 950 1150 1500
HU HUF 50000 60000 75000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 200000
IE EUR 1200 1350 1500 1650 1800 2050 2300 2600 3000
IT EUR 600 750 850 900 1000 1100 1200 1350 1600
LT LTL 430 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1300 1500
LU EUR 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2800 3400
LV LVL 80 100 120 140 180 220 260 300 400
NL EUR 1050 1150 1250 1350 1450 1600 1800 2100 2500
MT MTL 200 280 350 400 450 500 650 700 800
PL PLZ 800 1000 1150 1300 1500 1700 2000 2400 3000
PT EUR 300 350 400 450 550 650 750 900 1200
SE SEK 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17500 20000 25000
SI SIT 80000 95000 110000 125000 140000 155000 175000 205000 260000
SK SKK 6500 8000 9000 10000 11000 12500 14000 16500 20000
UK GBP 900 950 1000 1100 1250 1400 1650 2000 2500
NO NOK 225000 250000 270000 290000 310000 330000 360000 410000 440000
CH CHF 1600 2800 3500 4100 4600 5000 5600 6500 8100
BG BGN 100 130 150 160 180 200 230 270 360
HR HRK 1500 2000 2500 3200 3800 4500 5500 6000 7000
RO RON 320 360 400 440 540 650 700 860 1200
TR TRL 200 350 450 550 650 800 1000 1500 2000

Source: Eurostat.

Note: results refer only to employees working in establishments with 10 or more employees. In the countries not covered in the European Earnings Structure Survey
(MT, NO, CH, BG, HR, RO, TR), the national fieldwork institutes were asked to provide similarly constructed income bands. For more detailed information on the
income tables, refer to http://www.eurofound.eu.int/docs/ewco/4EWCS/4EWCSincomebands.pdf

100
 Background variables (EU27 aggregates)
Place of work and work organisation Sex Age Sector: NACE main codes Occupation: 1st-level ISCO codes Type of employment
Note: see statistical annex key overleaf for interpretation of data and categories m f <= 24 25-39 40-54 55+ Agric Manuf Utils Const Retail Hotel Trans Financ Rl_est Pubad Educ Health isco1 isco2 isco3 isco4 isco5 isco6 isco7 isco8 isco9 isco10 self emp
Q11f. Working at company / org. premises 69.8 76.5 75.5 74.2 72.3 67.6 49.4 82.5 67.4 49.5 76.0 76.2 57.2 81.1 75.5 80.3 82.4 81.2 76.9 78.2 81.2 80.2 73.3 47.0 67.4 61.0 67.4 77.7 55.1 76.6
Q11g. Teleworking from home 9.5 6.8 5.7 8.7 8.7 8.5 1.9 5.6 5.9 9.4 6.3 5.1 9.1 14.8 19.2 6.8 15.4 6.2 15.5 19.0 12.0 5.4 6.0 1.4 4.5 2.3 2.2 4.1 14.3 7.1
Q11j. Dealing directly with people who are not employees (eg. customers) 59.5 66.0 60.9 64.8 60.9 61.3 26.3 37.7 61.4 64.5 74.4 75.1 70.9 74.9 69.5 63.4 81.7 79.7 78.6 77.2 69.3 66.2 78.8 28.3 47.0 40.4 48.8 40.2 73.6 60.5
Q11k. Working with computers 43.1 48.5 35.1 51.1 45.3 39.8 9.9 36.8 58.3 25.6 43.7 17.0 43.3 92.9 75.8 69.4 56.8 55.6 65.9 76.5 70.1 76.0 34.7 5.4 16.2 11.6 15.4 66.0 36.2 47.6
Q11l. Using internet / email for work 34.5 38.0 23.5 41.9 36.0 30.9 7.5 26.4 47.9 25.1 30.7 15.0 36.0 81.6 68.8 52.8 47.8 37.3 60.9 66.1 56.3 59.9 23.0 3.4 10.6 4.3 9.9 40.9 34.3 36.7
Q20a_a. Short repetitive tasks of <1m 23.8 25.8 33.2 25.0 23.3 20.6 26.4 28.2 19.9 32.7 26.5 37.3 20.7 17.2 17.2 20.1 15.3 24.9 16.7 17.4 21.9 25.7 26.9 24.3 30.6 30.8 28.7 24.0 23.9 24.9
Q20a_b. Short repetitive tasks of <10m 37.4 41.0 46.9 37.7 38.4 37.2 38.0 42.9 41.7 49.1 41.1 49.4 34.1 31.8 30.2 31.3 25.3 43.4 29.2 27.2 35.1 39.4 42.3 39.4 48.5 47.3 44.6 26.2 37.3 39.5
q20b_a. Working at very high speed 62.4 56.1 67.3 61.1 58.9 50.3 61.2 65.5 54.5 72.3 60.3 75.4 63.1 55.2 55.4 51.1 39.2 61.8 59.8 50.4 57.7 57.8 59.9 60.9 71.8 67.5 53.6 58.3 59.5 59.9
q20b_b. Working to tight deadlines 67.7 54.4 59.2 65.3 62.6 52.1 62.5 69.1 64.1 77.2 52.9 66.1 72.7 67.0 70.3 56.6 42.7 59.1 65.6 60.1 64.0 61.8 49.1 64.9 77.2 68.5 48.7 51.7 61.7 62.3
q21a. Pace of work dependent on colleagues 44.9 38.8 52.3 45.0 39.3 33.4 33.3 51.6 48.9 57.6 34.5 48.7 42.4 37.6 39.5 43.9 30.5 47.7 39.8 37.8 41.7 44.3 37.4 26.9 51.6 51.7 38.9 54.5 22.4 46.5
q21b. Pace of work dependent on direct demands from customers etc 65.4 71.4 69.6 70.0 65.7 68.0 29.6 54.7 65.3 67.4 82.0 87.6 70.6 77.2 71.1 61.7 79.4 83.0 82.9 76.2 74.8 72.4 81.9 27.3 59.6 55.1 53.3 47.3 74.0 67.2
q21c. Pace of work dependent on numerical production / perform. targets 47.6 35.1 40.3 44.3 42.7 35.1 50.1 63.3 47.1 51.5 31.1 30.9 46.8 48.6 41.0 30.5 32.8 30.1 45.3 41.5 43.1 34.4 29.8 47.4 55.7 56.1 33.2 31.2 36.6 43.4
q21d. Pace of work dependent on automated equipment / machine 23.2 13.2 22.2 19.4 18.5 14.3 22.1 41.4 14.6 23.5 13.1 14.3 22.4 10.1 11.7 10.8 3.8 7.9 15.0 7.9 12.4 13.0 9.4 18.4 33.7 49.6 19.7 8.3 14.4 19.8
q21e. Pace of work dependent on boss 36.0 35.3 47.8 38.4 33.0 24.8 22.1 46.1 38.1 43.3 33.7 36.7 38.6 36.3 31.6 39.9 28.4 29.5 21.4 27.4 35.9 42.0 31.8 12.1 44.8 48.5 40.9 45.8 5.6 41.9
q22a. Have to interrupt a task in order to take on an unforeseen task 31.3 34.4 28.1 36.0 32.0 29.5 21.8 29.0 39.0 31.4 34.1 34.6 25.2 40.0 37.5 35.6 30.9 47.2 44.4 38.4 37.1 38.6 33.0 20.8 28.2 16.7 24.9 35.2 30.3 33.4
q24a. Can choose / change order of tasks 62.8 64.1 45.9 64.1 65.3 71.5 77.3 51.3 72.3 57.9 62.6 56.8 55.0 77.8 74.3 63.2 70.5 65.3 85.2 76.0 71.0 63.8 61.5 84.4 49.3 34.7 54.6 54.5 86.8 58.7
q24b. Can choose / change methods of work 67.2 66.7 50.9 66.7 69.7 74.3 76.4 56.6 74.5 63.4 65.8 58.1 55.4 71.8 75.2 67.4 85.3 68.1 86.7 83.2 73.4 63.7 61.5 84.1 60.0 38.1 57.3 57.9 86.9 63.1
q24c. Can choose / change speed of work 69.1 69.3 57.4 70.2 69.5 76.4 83.8 60.8 82.9 65.5 66.7 57.8 62.7 76.7 79.5 70.5 79.9 66.3 82.2 80.7 73.8 68.3 63.3 87.9 63.5 49.2 62.3 59.8 88.8 65.3
q25a. Can get assistance from colleagues if asked 68.1 66.8 76.0 69.1 65.2 62.2 58.5 67.6 70.6 72.8 65.9 68.8 62.5 75.1 65.9 77.2 71.1 74.4 64.2 70.5 74.4 71.1 65.4 56.2 70.3 64.2 58.1 78.3 47.7 71.3
q25b. Can get assistance from superiors / boss if asked 54.5 58.1 64.0 58.5 53.5 48.9 43.3 55.7 62.0 55.3 56.2 53.6 53.4 68.6 57.0 64.0 58.4 61.1 48.3 60.4 64.3 63.4 55.7 33.2 54.1 53.6 47.5 54.8 24.8 60.3
q25c. Can get external assistance if asked 32.7 30.5 26.8 32.7 32.0 32.5 32.2 26.4 34.4 35.1 30.5 27.5 33.3 36.5 34.6 38.6 32.3 35.7 39.8 35.6 35.9 31.2 29.2 29.0 29.1 27.8 23.8 47.2 33.2 31.4
q25d. Has influence over choice of working partners 28.6 18.7 14.0 24.3 25.0 31.2 41.9 21.6 26.6 33.4 24.6 29.5 21.1 23.7 27.3 18.2 15.1 20.2 57.6 26.7 23.5 14.6 18.0 48.6 23.7 12.8 14.3 23.1 55.1 18.7
q25e. Can take break when wishes 47.5 41.0 32.5 43.8 45.3 56.0 65.3 38.5 57.4 46.9 43.1 37.0 46.8 61.6 61.6 46.3 19.5 35.2 69.3 44.9 47.0 44.8 37.6 68.9 37.4 30.4 40.4 50.9 74.2 38.3
q25f. Has enough time to get the job done 68.8 70.6 71.6 68.6 68.9 72.8 73.1 70.4 72.6 64.3 70.5 70.6 65.6 70.9 68.1 69.5 70.3 65.8 65.3 67.9 66.9 71.2 71.6 67.7 69.1 69.5 75.9 71.2 75.4 68.4
q26a. Task rotation 44.5 42.6 49.9 46.3 42.0 35.4 35.8 46.4 48.6 44.7 42.5 48.0 37.5 36.6 35.0 53.7 43.8 57.2 38.5 42.8 48.9 39.8 43.3 38.6 49.0 44.5 39.7 70.4 25.0 47.7
q26b. Teamwork 57.4 52.3 58.7 56.7 54.8 48.3 49.8 58.8 60.4 64.3 45.8 58.5 51.1 52.5 49.0 67.0 56.1 67.7 55.4 59.6 60.3 48.9 52.3 48.8 61.6 53.2 47.5 72.7 31.7 60.0
q31. Immediate boss is a woman 9.4 42.0 25.4 24.9 23.1 26.9 10.6 13.6 11.8 4.8 26.2 24.7 14.9 25.5 20.8 24.3 45.2 55.5 18.1 29.0 32.3 27.8 35.3 15.0 7.4 11.3 29.6 3.1 na 24.5

Job content and training m f <= 24 25-39 40-54 55+ Agric Manuf Utils Const Retail Hotel Trans Financ Rl_est Pubad Educ Health isco1 isco2 isco3 isco4 isco5 isco6 isco7 isco8 isco9 isco10 self emp
q23a. Meeting precise quality standards? 77.6 69.9 71.8 75.6 75.0 70.0 63.2 84.4 86.0 85.1 67.1 79.5 73.7 74.4 72.7 67.4 68.5 77.8 76.4 75.3 73.8 67.9 67.4 62.5 89.3 77.6 69.0 62.8 75.7 74.4
101

q23b. Assessing quality of own work 73.3 69.8 59.6 73.8 73.5 71.6 66.0 74.0 81.1 78.2 65.5 68.1 63.9 77.9 75.9 67.1 78.2 75.2 84.1 80.8 76.9 64.3 63.7 66.4 79.5 60.8 61.7 67.8 81.5 70.1
q23c. Solving unforeseen problems 83.5 77.5 68.2 82.5 82.9 81.6 81.8 73.8 87.7 82.0 79.3 77.3 84.7 88.9 84.7 83.6 86.1 85.9 90.7 90.7 86.4 80.0 78.2 85.4 78.8 69.6 67.2 85.7 89.3 79.5
q23d. Monotonous tasks 41.8 44.3 51.0 43.3 41.8 38.1 54.2 49.1 42.8 49.1 41.8 49.0 45.7 36.4 36.4 42.8 31.6 36.5 34.9 28.2 32.3 45.2 42.1 54.8 49.8 58.2 55.8 36.1 38.8 43.8
q23e. Complex tasks 64.2 53.4 46.4 62.9 61.3 55.6 50.9 60.8 79.1 69.8 46.4 37.0 54.8 73.6 70.0 68.3 61.8 69.7 67.5 78.9 75.3 57.5 42.6 54.2 67.3 45.0 32.7 67.2 58.6 60.0
q23f. Learning new things 70.2 67.8 68.0 73.7 67.7 62.0 58.0 67.1 83.6 73.2 58.7 53.6 59.5 85.4 76.3 77.8 84.4 83.0 77.5 89.6 83.7 71.5 61.3 58.3 67.4 49.7 44.6 92.4 68.5 69.6
q25j. Able to apply own ideas in work 60.0 56.5 39.9 57.6 62.0 67.2 66.6 50.4 57.9 60.0 56.2 55.6 48.2 60.6 63.2 52.6 76.4 57.5 83.5 74.6 62.0 45.8 55.9 72.6 53.1 39.5 46.4 51.6 84.4 53.3
q27. Job-skills match: need more training 12.7 13.6 16.4 15.6 11.5 7.6 9.1 12.3 14.9 12.7 10.1 5.7 9.0 15.4 14.8 16.3 19.8 19.6 13.1 22.3 18.3 13.9 9.7 8.9 12.2 7.0 5.2 16.2 12.3 13.2
q27. Job-skills match: correspond well 51.7 52.9 48.3 49.8 53.2 60.3 55.9 51.8 49.7 54.8 52.9 57.4 53.4 51.8 50.2 50.3 49.4 51.0 49.0 46.6 50.0 51.0 55.4 54.4 54.5 58.0 54.6 50.1 52.4 52.4
q27. Job-skills match: could cope with more demanding duties 35.6 33.5 35.2 34.6 35.2 32.0 35.0 35.9 35.3 32.5 37.0 36.9 37.6 32.8 35.1 33.5 30.8 29.4 37.9 31.1 31.7 35.1 34.8 36.7 33.3 34.9 40.1 33.7 35.3 34.4
q28a_1. Has undergone paid-for training in previous 12 months 25.3 27.1 21.0 29.1 27.2 19.1 7.9 22.4 35.5 18.5 20.3 11.9 28.2 42.8 26.2 42.6 42.0 40.8 31.7 40.9 37.5 28.9 22.5 5.2 17.0 16.4 14.8 42.3 12.2 29.1

Violence, harassment and discrimination m f <= 24 25-39 40-54 55+ Agric Manuf Utils Const Retail Hotel Trans Financ Rl_est Pubad Educ Health isco1 isco2 isco3 isco4 isco5 isco6 isco7 isco8 isco9 isco10 self emp

Annex 3: Statistical tables

q29a. Threats of physical violence 5.9 6.2 5.6 7.1 5.7 4.2 2.5 1.8 1.3 3.7 5.2 9.2 9.7 1.9 2.2 11.3 11.9 16.4 8.0 7.7 7.0 4.7 9.1 2.5 2.4 5.8 4.7 8.3 4.9 6.3
q29b. Physical violence from colleagues 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.9 0.7 1.3 1.8 0.0 0.5 3.4 3.7 6.1 1.5 1.8 3.0 1.0 2.5 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.3 0.5 2.1
q29c. Physical violence from other people 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.8 4.3 3.2 0.9 1.5 4.3 1.9 4.5 7.5 7.3 3.1 1.4 8.7 5.2 11.4 6.2 4.8 4.1 4.1 6.9 1.6 1.5 4.7 3.9 9.7 4.3 4.4
q29d. Bullying / harassment 4.3 6.1 5.8 5.1 5.1 4.3 3.1 4.1 5.6 3.0 5.9 8.5 6.9 2.7 3.1 5.3 6.6 8.7 4.0 5.8 5.2 6.0 6.1 3.0 3.7 4.5 5.8 1.1 2.7 5.6
q29f. Unwanted sexual attention 0.8 2.9 3.6 2.2 1.2 0.6 0.3 1.4 0.5 0.8 1.9 3.9 2.6 2.0 1.3 1.3 2.0 3.3 2.5 1.5 2.1 2.4 2.6 0.9 0.7 1.2 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.8
q29g. Age discrimination 2.5 2.8 5.4 1.9 2.0 4.4 1.9 2.1 1.7 2.1 3.4 3.1 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.6 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.3 3.6 3.7 2.2 2.7 2.2 1.4 2.8 1.2 1.7 2.8

Physical work factors m f <= 24 25-39 40-54 55+ Agric Manuf Utils Const Retail Hotel Trans Financ Rl_est Pubad Educ Health isco1 isco2 isco3 isco4 isco5 isco6 isco7 isco8 isco9 isco10 self emp
q10a. Vibrations 35.6 10.1 26.1 23.7 25.2 21.4 38.4 44.2 34.2 63.2 14.8 11.6 23.3 2.5 7.9 11.5 5.3 9.2 15.5 9.1 11.4 5.8 8.6 38.0 67.1 51.0 25.3 30.0 27.1 23.9
q10b. Noise 39.1 18.9 33.8 29.8 31.0 25.2 35.4 49.8 37.8 60.3 19.8 29.0 28.6 4.4 11.1 17.8 31.8 12.2 22.1 20.3 20.5 11.6 17.6 34.9 65.8 55.1 29.2 38.2 27.3 30.8
q10c. High temperatures 30.7 17.5 27.4 24.2 26.2 20.7 56.2 34.2 27.7 42.1 16.0 38.6 26.9 6.4 11.2 19.9 10.8 16.3 15.7 11.1 14.9 11.5 22.7 60.2 44.2 41.8 29.4 33.4 28.4 24.1
q10d. Low temperatures 29.0 13.3 22.2 22.6 22.2 20.1 59.6 22.4 26.1 51.9 19.5 14.3 28.9 4.3 9.4 18.3 9.1 8.7 16.4 8.5 12.8 12.6 15.6 62.4 39.2 33.1 28.0 30.8 27.7 20.7
q10e. Breathing in smoke, fumes, powder or dust etc 28.3 7.6 20.9 18.4 20.1 16.9 30.5 33.3 27.1 48.9 13.1 11.7 19.2 2.0 6.9 11.4 4.3 5.2 11.5 6.3 10.4 5.7 8.4 30.7 53.4 35.7 19.2 26.2 20.7 18.9
q10f. Breathing in vapours such as solvents and thinners 15.0 6.5 12.0 11.1 11.8 9.4 7.8 20.3 12.3 28.7 7.9 4.2 6.4 1.5 5.5 6.7 2.8 8.7 7.6 5.7 7.0 2.9 6.2 6.6 31.8 17.5 12.0 16.2 10.9 11.5
q10g. Handling chemical substances 16.9 11.4 13.3 14.7 15.5 11.6 21.2 20.8 15.6 27.6 9.7 9.9 5.3 1.2 8.2 9.6 4.5 22.1 9.7 8.8 12.4 3.1 10.1 24.3 29.0 18.3 19.9 18.2 16.9 14.1
q10h. Radiation 6.2 2.8 4.1 5.2 4.7 3.7 1.8 7.3 5.6 7.9 3.2 0.9 4.0 1.1 2.5 3.8 1.3 13.0 2.0 5.9 5.6 1.4 1.9 1.6 10.9 6.1 2.9 5.6 3.4 4.9
q10i. Tobacco smoke from other people 24.9 14.1 27.8 20.3 18.7 16.6 15.6 20.7 19.7 37.5 18.8 50.0 19.6 9.4 11.6 22.7 8.0 13.0 19.0 10.7 16.1 16.0 23.3 17.0 31.4 24.0 20.9 39.6 19.1 20.0
q10j. Infectious materials 8.1 10.7 8.0 9.5 9.8 8.1 14.4 6.7 10.7 9.3 3.7 5.4 4.3 0.6 4.2 7.7 5.7 45.4 4.6 13.6 13.6 2.1 7.7 15.7 9.5 7.0 10.2 10.8 8.2 9.4
q11a. Tiring or painful positions 48.2 42.0 46.0 43.4 47.5 44.8 75.7 50.4 48.7 69.8 42.5 51.3 43.0 21.4 27.3 34.8 26.4 48.7 35.9 28.2 36.6 29.1 41.7 83.3 69.7 59.5 54.8 37.2 54.8 43.5
q11b. Lifting or moving people 5.8 11.1 6.8 8.9 8.4 6.4 5.6 2.9 2.0 6.9 2.5 4.4 4.4 1.2 2.3 10.4 10.9 43.4 2.6 11.2 13.0 2.4 12.3 6.2 5.5 4.9 9.9 15.0 5.5 8.7
q11c. Carrying or moving heavy loads 43.0 25.0 41.9 34.4 34.8 31.3 67.1 41.7 32.9 64.2 42.4 47.8 34.5 4.0 13.2 17.5 11.1 27.7 29.7 11.2 18.6 15.2 34.1 72.7 65.0 51.9 48.7 27.5 44.7 33.1
q11d. Standing or walking 75.1 70.1 78.7 72.0 71.9 72.5 91.5 76.6 69.1 85.3 78.2 93.0 54.3 34.8 48.4 57.1 82.2 79.7 69.3 62.8 64.8 46.3 85.0 96.2 89.1 64.7 89.0 79.9 77.3 72.0
q11e. Repetitive hand or arm movements 62.5 62.0 66.1 61.9 62.5 59.1 79.0 68.9 63.5 76.2 59.4 77.3 63.9 49.7 55.8 51.3 43.6 54.6 50.9 45.1 50.2 56.9 60.7 83.2 81.1 76.5 74.9 43.5 64.5 61.7
q11m. Wearing personal protective clothing or equipment 42.4 23.5 37.8 34.4 33.7 30.5 36.3 49.4 57.5 67.1 24.8 26.8 26.7 3.3 16.8 26.2 11.2 51.2 20.1 24.3 27.1 12.5 26.9 35.5 68.8 51.0 38.4 56.2 28.5 35.4
 Fourth European Working Conditions Survey
Sex Age Sector: NACE main codes Occupation: 1st-level ISCO codes Type of employment
Information and communication m f <= 24 25-39 40-54 55+ Agric Manuf Utils Const Retail Hotel Trans Financ Rl_est Pubad Educ Health isco1 isco2 isco3 isco4 isco5 isco6 isco7 isco8 isco9 isco10 self emp
q30b. Consulted about changes in work organisation etc 47.1 47.2 38.9 48.8 48.0 47.2 42.9 43.4 47.7 41.8 44.8 45.2 48.6 55.5 49.5 49.9 56.8 56.2 67.3 61.2 53.4 48.0 43.7 31.9 38.4 35.4 36.0 45.3 na 47.1
q30c. Subject to regular formal assessment of performance 41.6 38.1 38.4 41.5 40.7 34.2 26.9 37.3 44.1 38.2 39.2 30.0 46.6 58.7 38.6 47.2 42.4 46.6 48.4 49.6 42.9 43.6 34.3 25.8 37.8 34.6 29.7 53.7 na 40.0
q12. Well-informed about health and safety risks 84.2 81.8 80.1 82.5 84.2 84.7 76.5 84.5 87.7 84.3 82.7 78.9 82.0 85.2 82.3 85.3 82.5 88.8 87.5 87.3 87.1 82.5 81.4 74.3 82.7 83.8 75.4 95.8 83.5 83.5

Health m f <= 24 25-39 40-54 55+ Agric Manuf Utils Const Retail Hotel Trans Financ Rl_est Pubad Educ Health isco1 isco2 isco3 isco4 isco5 isco6 isco7 isco8 isco9 isco10 self emp
q32. Consider health or safety at risk because of work 33.7 22.4 23.8 29.5 30.5 24.9 52.6 32.5 30.7 43.3 19.5 26.8 35.2 13.9 19.6 29.0 19.5 34.6 22.0 22.1 19.6 16.4 25.4 62.2 44.1 45.4 26.6 39.9 35.5 27.3
q33. Work affects health 38.1 32.1 26.1 35.7 38.8 33.0 61.4 39.7 33.9 44.3 27.6 33.2 37.9 21.2 26.9 30.6 35.7 39.1 32.4 32.2 27.1 24.3 29.5 70.4 47.9 49.2 32.9 35.8 42.8 34.0
q33a_a… hearing problems 9.9 3.9 5.5 6.3 8.8 6.7 13.3 14.0 11.0 12.2 2.8 4.3 9.2 0.7 2.2 4.3 7.3 2.2 4.0 4.4 3.2 2.8 2.9 12.1 17.6 17.2 5.7 11.9 6.9 7.3
q33a_b... problems with your vision 8.4 7.0 3.7 7.2 9.9 7.0 11.2 11.6 8.9 8.6 4.4 2.5 9.6 6.5 9.2 9.6 6.7 5.1 4.5 8.7 6.8 9.4 3.6 11.3 12.3 10.7 4.8 2.1 8.6 7.6
q33a_c... skin problems 7.4 5.5 5.7 7.3 6.7 4.9 14.5 8.2 9.2 12.3 3.8 5.9 4.0 1.2 3.1 3.9 3.6 9.9 2.5 4.3 4.7 2.2 5.3 14.3 13.9 9.5 7.3 2.7 7.3 6.4
q33a_d… backache 26.6 22.3 17.7 24.3 27.3 24.2 50.5 27.5 24.4 36.5 19.9 22.3 28.4 12.0 16.5 19.5 16.8 26.3 17.9 16.8 17.7 15.8 20.1 59.7 37.4 37.6 26.1 21.1 31.3 23.3
q33a_e.. headaches 15.1 16.0 11.0 16.2 17.0 13.2 27.7 17.3 16.8 15.2 11.9 12.9 15.8 8.8 12.4 13.7 20.2 18.0 11.8 16.9 12.0 12.1 13.0 32.4 18.7 21.3 13.6 13.0 18.9 14.8
q33a_f… stomach ache 6.2 5.3 3.1 6.1 6.8 4.9 12.3 6.0 6.6 5.9 3.4 5.0 7.5 4.9 4.2 7.3 7.4 4.5 4.6 5.2 4.3 4.7 4.9 13.3 7.2 8.7 5.1 8.1 7.5 5.5
q33a_g… muscular pains 24.3 20.8 16.5 22.1 25.4 22.8 50.5 25.5 25.6 32.5 18.1 20.4 24.7 11.7 15.3 17.2 15.9 24.3 16.9 15.4 15.8 14.2 18.7 57.6 35.3 34.0 24.1 13.2 29.9 21.4
q33a_h… respiratory difficulties 6.1 3.1 4.9 4.3 4.9 5.4 11.3 8.0 5.8 9.6 2.3 5.0 2.8 0.6 1.7 2.9 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.0 2.4 1.6 2.7 12.7 11.0 8.3 4.6 9.1 5.7 4.5
q33a_i… heart disease 2.9 1.8 0.7 1.7 2.8 4.9 9.6 2.9 2.4 2.0 0.9 1.1 2.4 0.2 1.7 2.7 2.6 1.9 1.7 2.2 1.5 0.9 1.7 11.9 3.4 3.0 1.9 1.2 4.6 2.0
q33a_j...injury(ies) 13.0 5.6 9.3 10.4 9.7 8.2 23.7 12.7 16.9 21.0 5.3 8.9 9.7 1.0 3.3 8.7 3.6 10.2 5.1 4.3 6.1 2.7 6.8 25.6 22.1 15.6 9.9 13.6 12.8 9.1
q33a_k...stress 23.3 21.0 14.1 23.7 24.7 18.4 30.0 23.8 22.9 22.9 16.5 23.2 24.7 14.7 18.4 22.6 28.5 29.4 22.2 25.5 19.3 16.5 19.6 32.1 26.2 29.3 17.7 21.7 25.6 21.8
q33a_l...overall fatigue 24.2 20.5 15.8 23.0 24.5 21.7 49.0 25.5 23.1 28.7 15.9 23.0 23.7 13.9 13.9 18.2 23.6 25.0 20.3 20.3 15.8 14.0 17.2 55.4 31.0 33.3 21.2 19.1 29.7 21.1
q33a_m...sleeping problems 8.9 8.5 4.1 8.6 10.1 8.8 14.9 9.4 6.8 4.9 5.5 8.5 13.3 6.9 7.5 10.1 11.4 12.9 9.6 10.1 7.1 6.5 7.4 15.9 7.7 14.4 6.6 8.0 10.4 8.4
q33a_n...allergies 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.2 4.4 3.3 9.1 6.0 3.8 4.4 1.7 3.4 1.5 0.6 2.2 3.3 3.4 6.5 2.0 3.3 2.7 1.5 3.0 9.6 7.8 5.5 4.3 1.2 5.0 3.8
q33a_o...anxiety 7.7 8.0 2.8 8.0 9.4 7.3 10.3 7.6 7.2 6.1 5.0 7.3 7.0 6.0 8.0 10.9 13.7 11.4 7.9 10.7 7.3 6.9 7.3 10.0 7.0 7.6 6.5 9.7 9.1 7.7
q33a_p... Irritability 11.1 9.7 5.3 11.1 12.1 8.7 11.1 10.6 11.1 9.9 7.1 12.6 13.6 6.3 8.6 12.4 15.6 15.2 10.8 12.3 9.3 8.8 9.8 11.1 11.1 14.0 7.9 12.5 11.2 10.4
q35. Able to do same job when 60 58.4 58.0 43.6 54.2 62.4 77.5 54.2 54.1 65.2 50.3 61.1 42.3 54.4 74.4 64.9 58.3 61.7 60.4 69.3 70.6 66.7 65.6 54.3 52.9 47.4 48.4 44.7 32.3 65.7 57.1
q34a_d. Absent for health problems in previous year 22.0 23.9 20.0 22.8 24.1 22.4 14.4 26.1 26.4 21.5 19.5 18.9 25.0 22.6 18.2 30.9 29.9 25.5 15.9 26.3 26.5 24.0 21.8 16.2 24.0 23.1 20.6 19.1 12.4 25.2
q34b_ef. Average days health-related absence in previous year 4.2 5.0 2.3 3.9 5.8 5.1 3.1 5.1 4.4 4.2 2.9 2.7 5.5 4.5 3.6 8.2 5.1 5.2 1.8 4.7 4.1 4.3 5.0 3.5 5.6 5.3 4.9 6.7 2.6 5.0

Work and family life m f <= 24 25-39 40-54 55+ Agric Manuf Utils Const Retail Hotel Trans Financ Rl_est Pubad Educ Health isco1 isco2 isco3 isco4 isco5 isco6 isco7 isco8 isco9 isco10 self emp
Q18. Working hours fit family / social commitments well or very well 76.6 83.0 79.8 76.7 80.1 84.7 71.3 79.2 89.0 78.1 76.8 70.4 71.5 86.4 81.7 79.9 90.1 79.6 74.5 84.2 85.3 86.3 73.3 70.6 78.2 70.2 81.2 70.0 72.6 80.8
q19. Contacted about work outside normal working hours 26.3 16.8 16.5 24.1 22.2 21.2 16.8 17.2 21.5 30.3 17.5 20.4 28.2 27.9 32.6 18.1 23.4 21.2 37.5 33.5 24.5 16.4 20.7 11.1 18.1 16.3 13.9 15.3 30.3 20.7
ef4c. Caring for and educating your children every day for an hour or more 21.2 38.2 5.2 39.8 32.8 6.6 24.4 27.2 26.9 18.9 27.7 24.4 26.3 36.3 27.4 32.0 39.7 38.2 30.5 33.6 30.3 33.0 28.3 25.1 21.0 24.8 29.3 24.0 25.4 29.6
ef4d. Cooking and housework 22.8 75.8 28.1 49.8 49.9 42.9 41.4 37.5 35.6 24.9 49.3 43.6 34.5 45.3 44.6 52.4 69.9 66.6 37.1 54.3 53.3 59.2 54.9 43.0 26.2 28.8 52.5 22.7 37.3 48.2
102

Job satisfaction m f <= 24 25-39 40-54 55+ Agric Manuf Utils Const Retail Hotel Trans Financ Rl_est Pubad Educ Health isco1 isco2 isco3 isco4 isco5 isco6 isco7 isco8 isco9 isco10 self emp
q36. Satisfied or very satisfied with working conditions 81.4 83.5 79.6 82.2 82.4 85.3 63.8 79.1 91.4 81.4 83.9 75.6 81.3 90.8 86.7 84.4 86.9 84.7 88.4 89.8 88.4 85.8 81.3 59.9 79.5 73.9 76.3 83.7 83.6 82.4
q37a_ef. I might lose my job in the next 6 months 13.8 13.5 19.4 15.0 12.1 9.2 12.5 16.4 14.3 17.7 15.1 20.2 14.9 7.6 14.6 7.4 7.0 9.1 5.9 9.3 11.9 15.2 14.3 9.5 17.0 19.8 18.9 8.1 7.1 14.9
q37b_ef. I am well paid for the work I do 45.7 40.2 41.8 43.5 43.3 44.0 21.2 42.1 51.2 51.8 42.0 38.5 43.2 64.5 53.2 48.9 38.8 37.1 55.6 50.1 48.3 46.2 40.5 15.5 42.9 35.0 34.6 51.2 44.2 43.4
q37c_ef. My job offers good prospects for career advancement 33.1 28.3 39.7 37.5 26.3 17.6 8.5 27.4 45.4 33.2 26.9 25.0 30.1 55.9 45.7 41.7 27.6 33.9 42.1 46.4 39.6 34.1 30.1 6.7 25.8 13.7 15.3 56.9 30.0 31.3

Structure of workforce
Q2d_ef. Seniority (mean years) 10.6 8.6 1.6 5.8 12.9 19.0 16.1 10.8 11.7 9.0 7.7 5.3 10.2 11.0 6.7 12.7 11.0 9.9 12.2 9.9 10.1 9.4 7.2 17.6 10.1 9.4 7.3 14.0 13.1 9.1

Working time m f <= 24 25-39 40-54 55+ Agric Manuf Utils Const Retail Hotel Trans Financ Rl_est Pubad Educ Health isco1 isco2 isco3 isco4 isco5 isco6 isco7 isco8 isco9 isco10 self emp
q8a_ef. Mean usual weekly working hours 41.7 34.7 35.5 39.0 39.4 37.8 49.2 40.5 40.1 42.5 38.5 39.1 39.9 37.4 37.2 38.1 30.7 34.2 46.3 36.1 36.9 35.5 35.8 51.4 41.2 41.9 34.5 41.3 46.4 37.2
Q8b. % usually working five days per week 67.3 62.3 58.1 67.3 67.4 57.9 24.5 77.2 80.8 74.7 50.7 33.1 67.2 78.2 71.7 78.3 77.0 63.7 52.9 73.8 76.0 73.7 50.0 17.9 74.5 71.1 58.0 78.5 32.0 72.0
Q9a. % with more than one job 6.3 6.1 6.6 6.8 5.9 4.9 5.9 4.4 5.0 4.8 5.2 6.4 5.8 5.5 9.1 6.2 9.0 7.3 4.9 8.7 6.3 4.7 6.4 4.7 5.6 5.0 7.6 4.0 7.1 5.9
q13_ef. Daily commuting time (return, in minutes) 43.3 39.5 36.3 43.1 42.6 39.1 36.2 41.5 49.9 49.6 35.6 32.4 43.4 55.1 45.6 45.0 38.6 40.6 41.0 46.8 43.2 42.3 37.5 33.3 45.5 40.7 35.8 45.6 30.3 43.6
q14e_ef. Long working days 22.4 10.0 10.4 18.1 17.1 18.3 43.6 12.5 14.7 16.6 15.2 28.6 25.2 13.6 18.8 14.9 8.8 15.3 37.2 15.6 12.1 5.6 16.8 50.8 13.8 20.2 11.2 26.0 39.1 12.7
q16a_a. Work same number of hours each day 55.8 61.7 63.8 58.4 57.9 55.1 37.1 69.6 70.6 58.8 60.5 49.5 48.7 61.5 54.5 64.5 46.5 57.0 44.8 46.3 58.0 71.0 56.2 29.5 66.6 63.8 69.4 63.4 36.4 63.3
q16a_b. Work same number of days each week 71.9 76.6 73.5 74.2 74.2 73.3 60.3 78.7 78.9 74.1 73.5 67.9 64.0 81.7 74.2 78.2 85.5 63.2 66.0 75.4 75.3 85.0 66.3 60.2 78.5 70.7 75.9 70.2 58.8 77.5
q16a_c. Work fixed starting and finishing times 55.7 67.0 63.4 61.9 60.9 54.6 27.5 69.9 70.9 57.3 65.1 50.5 53.7 58.4 51.1 63.5 68.0 63.9 39.4 54.7 61.9 73.6 62.2 22.1 66.9 66.0 70.3 60.4 29.4 67.6
q16a_d. Work shifts 17.2 17.4 20.7 19.1 16.7 10.5 4.5 25.8 17.4 5.3 16.3 29.9 24.1 6.2 9.5 17.7 8.0 35.5 8.8 11.6 14.3 13.4 26.9 2.6 17.6 34.5 19.2 19.2 5.7 19.8
q17a. % with less flexible schedules 63.4 67.6 77.1 67.1 63.8 52.8 30.9 74.4 71.9 65.0 66.2 63.5 70.8 48.5 51.8 68.6 80.3 70.4 33.4 58.8 62.0 73.3 70.2 20.5 76.0 83.3 75.5 89.1 15.4 75.9

Statistical annex key

In general, percentages refer to proportion of respondents answering postively with don’t knows / refusals omitted from calculations.
For the following questions, different answer categories have been combined as indicated: Q10*: ¼ of the time or more; Q11*: ¼ of the time or more; Q12: well informed or very well informed; Q14e_ef: % working more than 10 hrs a day more than five times per month. Q18: well or very well; Q19: a couple of
times a month or more; Q20b_*: ¼ of the time or more; Q22a: very often or fairly often; Q25*: often or almost always; Q34b_ef: mean no. of days for all respondents; Q35: yes, I think so; Q37*: agree or strongly agree; EF4*: every day for one hour or more. Q37*. agree or strongly agree.
NACE codes: Agric=agriculture and fisheries; Manuf=Manufacture and mining; Utils=electricity,gas and water supply; Const=Construction; Retail=wholesale and retail trade; Hotel=hotels and restaurants; Trans=transport and communications; Financ=financial intermediation; Rl_est=real estate; Pubad=public
administration and defence; Educ=education. ISCO codes: isco1=legislators, senior officials and managers; isco2=professionals; isco3=technicians and associate professionals; isco4=clerks; isco5=service, shop and market sales workers; isco6=skilled agricultural and fishery workers; isco7=craft and related trades workers;
isco8 = plant and machine operators and assemblers; isco9=elementary occupations; isco0=armed forces. Type of employment: Self=self-employed; emp=employee.
Country groups: NMS= ten Member States that joined EU on 1 May 2004. NM2= two Member States that joined EU on 1 Jan 2007. CC2=Candidate countries, Croatia and Turkey.
 Country data
Place of work and work organisation
Note: see statistical annex key on previous page for Country groups Countries
interpretation of data and categories
EU27 EU25 EU15 NMS NM2 CC2 BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SV UK HR TR NO CH
q11f. Working at company / org. premises 72.8 73.1 73.5 71.1 68.0 62.0 74.8 77.0 81.9 87.1 78.6 87.4 52.6 64.2 75.7 79.4 63.4 39.3 78.7 75.8 76.9 49.3 87.2 63.8 77.8 69.2 86.4 64.9 87.2 84.7 88.2 88.1 76.6 83.5 60.3 81.5 83.6
q11g. Teleworking from home 8.3 8.7 8.4 10.7 2.0 3.2 14.7 1.9 18.7 16.0 8.5 14.7 7.1 8.4 7.0 5.5 3.9 5.2 13.7 7.8 7.8 3.6 3.1 14.0 14.2 10.1 2.1 2.0 8.5 11.6 13.0 10.5 9.6 17.3 2.1 11.6 8.3
q11j. Dealing directly with people who are not employees (eg. customers) 62.4 64.1 66.3 51.5 34.7 28.6 63.4 40.0 53.2 72.0 60.8 58.0 63.0 60.9 70.0 71.7 68.8 57.2 55.1 63.2 67.3 45.0 58.5 66.1 66.2 50.5 62.8 32.9 58.2 50.2 73.9 77.7 69.8 56.9 26.4 77.9 68.3
q11k. Working with computers 45.5 47.3 49.8 32.9 16.6 15.6 56.1 21.9 39.4 62.3 53.5 41.0 29.3 35.9 53.3 48.9 41.7 30.8 30.9 34.6 58.8 29.4 45.2 71.6 50.5 29.6 35.1 14.9 51.3 35.9 62.0 69.6 50.7 43.3 13.4 55.9 58.5
q11l. Using internet / email for work 36.0 37.6 39.5 26.4 11.0 12.6 45.8 14.9 33.3 54.3 39.3 36.9 22.0 30.4 42.0 36.9 35.5 23.3 26.2 31.7 46.1 21.3 37.5 55.5 43.0 23.3 26.6 9.8 40.2 27.3 51.8 55.5 41.2 31.7 11.1 43.2 49.1
q20a_a. Short repetitive tasks of <1m 24.7 24.6 26.2 15.6 26.4 45.8 16.7 25.4 18.6 27.4 21.7 22.8 23.1 39.9 24.9 18.5 24.2 38.6 17.4 31.7 26.7 12.2 21.5 16.3 21.5 12.6 39.2 26.8 26.6 13.9 35.7 15.6 29.7 16.7 47.8 28.4 19.6
q20a_b. Short repetitive tasks of <10m 39.0 38.9 40.4 30.1 41.2 52.1 25.7 39.8 37.6 46.9 42.8 38.4 35.0 47.8 35.4 28.2 40.8 44.6 29.6 46.1 34.8 25.7 37.6 44.8 35.4 25.7 46.5 41.7 40.9 32.5 60.2 38.1 36.6 33.8 53.4 31.8 30.7
q20b_a. Working at very high speed 59.6 59.7 61.1 51.5 57.3 71.3 60.5 27.2 60.4 75.5 72.2 57.0 73.3 60.0 49.7 42.0 66.6 72.5 39.5 48.9 56.8 64.4 59.5 60.9 72.4 42.8 51.2 67.1 75.2 57.0 77.7 85.0 46.7 23.2 74.7 78.4 71.6
q20b_b. Working to tight deadlines 61.8 61.9 62.4 59.1 59.9 68.9 62.1 53.6 71.2 68.8 70.9 59.6 68.4 55.1 54.3 57.3 59.2 68.8 51.0 57.8 56.3 58.5 69.6 61.2 68.5 56.0 53.0 62.0 67.3 54.7 73.6 71.7 63.5 43.6 70.6 64.8 66.3
q21a. Pace of work dependent on colleagues 42.2 41.9 42.1 40.4 47.4 47.5 41.2 54.5 42.3 49.4 39.2 53.5 45.8 37.3 38.4 44.3 37.5 42.5 50.6 50.5 43.4 48.7 59.5 43.4 35.5 33.0 46.7 45.0 58.1 45.0 42.2 44.9 53.8 52.7 47.1 46.2 33.0
q21b. Pace of work dependent on direct demands from customers etc 68.0 69.0 71.0 57.2 52.9 48.7 69.1 51.5 70.3 73.0 68.9 62.1 72.3 69.2 73.4 69.5 72.0 74.4 56.7 55.5 64.1 57.2 73.2 75.7 70.4 50.7 64.9 53.4 64.0 63.9 74.2 76.7 70.8 66.5 47.4 78.0 71.4
q21c. Pace of work dependent on numerical production / perform. targets 42.1 41.8 42.8 36.6 45.9 36.6 55.3 29.2 34.6 32.0 46.3 39.9 44.4 25.4 55.1 25.8 41.0 43.6 41.3 34.1 50.5 33.0 24.0 47.3 50.2 39.3 50.9 51.3 21.3 34.6 53.2 40.1 35.9 32.3 36.9 39.9 54.5
q21d. Pace of work dependent on automated equipment / machine 18.8 18.7 18.5 19.4 20.3 28.1 19.0 17.3 23.2 14.6 19.5 24.3 18.2 19.5 17.1 11.4 19.9 16.8 21.1 22.3 14.7 21.4 16.3 15.6 21.2 16.3 25.8 21.2 22.6 23.0 19.8 8.5 18.3 22.6 28.5 11.9 12.4
q21e. Pace of work dependent on boss 35.7 35.3 34.0 42.3 42.7 31.0 32.6 52.7 43.2 19.8 31.5 33.2 42.4 38.7 35.5 34.4 25.1 53.1 47.0 44.6 35.3 60.4 54.1 18.3 31.9 36.4 47.6 39.4 34.8 45.7 15.5 16.4 47.0 42.9 30.1 21.0 24.0
q22a. Have to interrupt a task in order to take on an unforeseen task 32.7 33.3 34.8 24.6 22.7 14.0 45.7 16.7 19.3 50.3 23.7 21.7 38.7 22.4 37.9 44.6 30.3 36.2 19.4 24.5 42.1 23.0 42.0 53.1 32.4 26.7 34.5 24.6 30.7 22.7 52.1 48.2 45.1 32.7 12.7 51.9 44.6
q24a. Can choose / change order of tasks 63.4 63.6 64.0 61.1 60.3 74.1 72.7 57.7 58.6 84.8 52.4 65.1 58.7 60.0 72.0 71.3 60.4 53.4 63.2 57.2 71.4 63.2 85.2 79.2 65.4 62.4 57.7 61.1 60.6 55.4 81.3 85.3 66.1 55.9 75.4 78.2 73.9
q24b. Can choose / change methods of work 66.9 67.4 68.2 62.8 59.0 80.4 76.3 54.1 56.4 80.7 70.6 70.8 59.6 54.5 67.9 69.5 75.5 55.1 74.4 68.3 73.3 65.2 82.8 73.5 63.2 62.6 66.3 60.6 60.8 62.9 72.6 89.3 63.4 60.7 81.8 82.0 82.4
q24c. Can choose / change speed of work 69.2 69.0 68.9 69.8 71.9 86.9 72.0 60.3 60.0 81.2 62.2 79.7 73.7 62.2 70.1 75.8 78.8 69.2 81.0 82.8 76.0 75.4 85.0 74.7 72.8 69.5 64.1 75.6 72.5 65.0 73.7 65.6 68.5 63.0 88.6 76.6 76.1
q25a. Can get assistance from colleagues if asked 67.6 67.1 65.5 76.6 74.5 40.7 67.2 67.3 77.1 87.4 64.9 83.9 61.0 70.1 50.8 82.8 50.7 71.8 85.7 68.4 71.6 79.9 84.0 84.7 72.8 74.5 49.2 77.1 78.0 81.6 84.3 87.7 76.1 79.4 37.6 83.0 80.7
q25b. Can get assistance from superiors / boss if asked 56.1 56.1 54.5 65.8 56.6 23.7 51.0 58.9 63.6 77.2 58.3 71.0 46.2 61.5 36.7 74.7 33.6 65.2 78.7 61.5 59.0 70.9 76.2 71.0 65.0 62.9 39.8 55.8 71.1 71.0 73.5 70.2 66.2 67.7 20.0 64.6 72.3
q25c. Can get external assistance if asked 31.6 32.0 30.6 40.1 25.7 10.7 28.8 26.5 49.1 55.9 29.5 34.7 25.6 33.8 16.3 47.7 14.3 22.4 42.3 44.9 29.7 37.2 47.4 51.1 44.1 37.3 14.1 25.4 34.9 49.5 41.5 41.4 45.4 40.3 8.2 40.5 36.3
q25d. Has influence over choice of working partners 24.2 23.7 23.5 24.6 33.2 41.3 29.0 24.8 20.2 36.4 17.9 23.6 35.5 24.2 23.4 28.6 20.3 30.8 28.8 21.4 28.2 23.8 29.0 37.6 29.0 27.6 18.9 36.2 21.6 16.2 27.0 30.2 23.0 26.7 42.5 30.2 33.9
q25e. Can take break when wishes 44.6 44.4 44.7 43.2 47.0 56.5 47.4 24.4 35.5 57.7 26.6 50.3 50.0 39.7 52.2 56.6 47.8 44.1 53.1 33.4 59.0 41.8 42.0 56.8 50.7 48.1 42.7 54.2 39.3 32.6 62.6 60.2 50.6 39.8 57.6 50.7 59.5
q25f. Has enough time to get the job done 69.6 69.2 68.7 72.3 75.8 67.4 61.3 87.9 60.3 67.6 60.5 79.0 67.9 73.1 72.6 71.7 76.1 67.6 80.2 77.6 74.0 79.2 69.9 64.5 60.0 74.1 74.9 71.8 75.9 63.4 67.9 68.3 69.5 79.9 66.5 69.4 74.6
q26a. Task rotation 43.7 43.3 43.3 43.2 49.3 35.0 46.7 51.9 43.3 68.2 51.1 46.5 51.0 30.0 34.3 47.1 33.9 45.5 53.7 34.7 41.4 27.0 43.6 62.3 44.7 45.2 28.4 48.4 72.2 46.8 44.5 56.8 47.8 54.5 33.6 53.6 42.6
q26b. Teamwork 55.2 55.0 54.6 57.0 58.4 47.1 60.7 61.9 58.4 57.7 59.1 73.0 52.2 40.0 46.4 65.4 38.5 49.8 69.2 64.7 64.9 46.7 68.6 75.2 56.0 54.7 46.4 57.3 84.8 61.2 71.5 69.5 68.9 62.9 46.0 72.1 59.1
q31. Immediate boss is a woman 24.5 24.5 23.9 28.3 25.1 16.1 25.3 26.2 24.0 29.3 18.2 37.5 19.7 21.0 25.2 29.8 17.5 14.8 31.1 34.1 19.5 30.6 21.0 21.7 22.8 28.0 26.9 24.6 33.1 26.8 39.0 33.3 33.1 25.1 14.8 32.4 20.3

Job content and training Country groups Countries

EU27 EU25 EU15 NMS NM2 CC2 BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SV UK HR TR NO CH
q23a. Meeting precise quality standards 74.2 74.7 75.0 72.8 66.2 76.1 73.3 60.4 69.3 79.4 71.4 67.3 58.2 74.2 76.1 72.8 76.8 68.1 71.5 58.6 73.1 83.4 73.7 76.4 82.4 73.7 81.6 68.0 66.9 69.6 78.4 57.1 79.9 71.0 76.4 95.2 77.4
q23b. Assessing quality of own work 71.8 72.6 72.9 70.5 58.8 80.0 69.3 55.7 73.9 88.7 64.8 86.8 68.5 64.2 83.0 74.0 77.0 64.5 83.9 73.6 77.9 48.2 82.0 72.7 78.5 76.7 76.0 59.8 69.5 52.1 75.6 77.7 74.3 79.0 80.1 87.5 85.5
q23c. Solving unforeseen problems 80.8 81.3 81.4 80.8 73.2 77.8 85.7 72.6 80.1 93.2 77.4 85.2 75.0 79.6 86.0 78.9 79.6 71.9 71.7 68.7 84.4 80.8 89.1 93.9 83.0 83.6 80.4 73.3 82.6 75.1 81.7 96.1 78.5 80.6 77.6 94.3 88.6
q23d. Monotonous tasks 42.9 43.0 41.9 49.0 41.9 63.8 31.4 58.1 55.6 43.8 28.5 56.2 58.1 63.5 40.8 46.3 39.5 44.1 39.6 52.8 37.2 36.6 25.4 22.7 26.4 52.0 49.9 36.7 39.5 44.6 48.0 23.1 55.0 62.0 64.0 25.4 22.9
q23e. Complex tasks 59.4 59.5 59.0 62.4 57.7 47.4 52.3 66.2 67.7 74.6 71.6 62.3 57.0 39.9 57.2 55.0 51.7 50.2 58.2 58.5 63.1 75.6 50.8 65.0 82.9 58.2 54.9 55.0 61.3 61.9 74.5 66.6 56.1 75.0 45.5 64.3 73.8
q23f. Learning new things 69.1 69.8 70.2 67.3 58.0 66.2 74.4 55.8 70.5 86.4 66.1 78.0 61.9 60.0 72.3 76.9 71.9 64.5 67.3 56.6 75.2 59.2 79.1 83.6 76.8 68.2 69.1 58.8 80.1 66.9 90.0 89.3 68.6 72.8 65.8 87.7 85.6
q25j. Able to apply own ideas in work 58.4 58.3 59.1 54.0 60.4 64.7 64.1 57.5 57.5 72.0 49.8 54.2 56.8 57.3 64.5 68.1 58.4 60.0 66.0 46.0 64.1 57.8 80.0 70.8 60.2 51.3 62.1 61.4 64.4 48.9 64.3 73.1 59.0 56.5 65.3 70.5 66.3
q27. Job-skills match: need more training 13.1 13.3 13.0 14.9 10.0 14.3 11.0 5.5 12.2 13.8 21.8 20.1 14.1 7.6 10.5 8.8 14.3 7.5 14.5 21.8 14.2 12.6 12.9 10.2 28.9 16.7 10.2 11.5 11.8 10.6 15.0 6.1 6.9 13.3 14.4 14.3 19.5
q27. Job-skills match: correspond well 52.3 52.5 52.2 54.3 48.3 50.2 60.7 63.6 65.8 52.9 50.6 48.3 46.5 57.2 44.0 47.4 57.9 51.1 54.6 54.4 48.4 46.9 55.0 56.4 46.8 52.9 62.5 43.3 54.3 53.4 62.6 52.7 50.1 43.4 50.6 57.5 49.4
q27. Job-skills match: could cope with more demanding duties 34.6 34.2 34.8 30.9 41.7 35.5 28.2 30.9 22.0 33.3 27.7 31.7 39.5 35.2 45.6 43.8 27.8 41.4 30.9 23.8 37.4 40.5 32.1 33.4 24.4 30.4 27.3 45.2 33.9 36.0 22.3 41.2 43.0 43.3 34.9 28.2 31.0
q28a_1. Has undergone paid-for training in previous 12 months 26.1 27.1 27.3 25.6 10.2 6.7 40.5 7.6 26.6 36.3 25.3 29.8 13.1 18.9 24.4 37.3 16.9 19.5 22.0 22.7 37.0 15.8 35.2 31.6 37.5 26.3 15.1 11.0 38.0 34.0 52.6 51.0 38.6 22.8 5.6 43.0 45.4

Violence, harassment and discrimination Country groups Countries

EU27 EU25 EU15 NMS NM2 CC2 BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SV UK HR TR NO CH
q29a. Threats of physical violence 6.0 6.1 6.3 5.2 3.7 4.4 8.3 2.9 5.5 5.0 4.5 6.6 4.5 4.7 6.9 7.9 1.4 2.2 4.3 4.7 5.7 2.7 6.0 12.2 4.6 6.2 4.4 4.0 6.3 3.6 12.5 9.7 10.9 6.5 4.2 7.2 4.4
q29b. Physical violence from colleagues 1.8 1.9 2.1 0.8 1.2 2.5 3.4 0.7 0.9 3.1 0.5 0.9 1.6 1.0 2.8 3.2 0.8 0.8 0.4 1.0 1.8 0.4 1.0 6.3 1.8 0.9 0.7 1.3 1.0 0.5 1.5 4.0 3.6 2.5 2.5 0.9 0.8
q29c. Physical violence from other people 4.3 4.4 4.6 3.5 3.1 3.6 5.2 1.7 3.5 2.4 3.5 4.5 2.5 3.7 7.1 5.6 1.0 1.7 5.1 2.7 4.4 1.3 2.9 6.6 2.6 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.9 4.5 7.1 3.2 7.2 5.1 3.4 5.4 3.4
q29d. Bullying / harassment 5.1 5.1 5.4 3.8 4.0 5.2 8.5 1.8 2.9 7.3 4.1 6.5 9.2 2.8 7.7 9.0 2.3 3.0 4.6 10.1 11.3 3.0 8.0 12.0 5.0 3.2 3.6 4.7 7.4 3.6 17.2 3.4 5.4 8.2 5.0 4.8 7.1
q29f. Unwanted sexual attention 1.8 1.8 1.7 2.2 1.4 2.4 1.9 1.1 4.8 2.8 1.1 2.2 2.0 0.7 1.5 2.2 0.9 0.8 1.1 2.8 1.5 0.9 3.2 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6 2.8 1.2 2.1 2.5 3.6 2.8 2.4 3.4 1.1
q29g. Age discrimination 2.7 2.7 2.6 3.2 2.7 2.9 2.9 1.6 5.7 2.0 2.9 2.3 4.2 0.4 2.4 4.2 2.6 2.8 1.3 4.9 3.7 2.9 3.0 3.6 3.2 2.3 2.2 3.1 3.5 3.9 3.5 4.1 2.5 2.9 2.9 2.2 3.9

Physical work factors Country groups Countries

EU27 EU25 EU15 NMS NM2 CC2 BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SV UK HR TR NO CH
q10a. Vibrations 24.2 24.2 23.1 30.1 25.4 25.7 18.7 24.8 25.4 16.8 28.8 33.6 30.6 26.8 21.8 20.1 24.4 28.4 31.7 31.8 18.8 34.2 23.1 15.9 24.3 31.2 33.3 25.6 29.2 24.1 21.6 15.1 15.4 29.1 25.4 14.0 17.6
q10b. Noise 30.1 30.2 28.7 38.8 28.0 29.1 25.2 33.3 33.0 30.0 32.9 39.4 34.9 31.0 31.9 25.7 23.9 25.3 37.4 40.0 23.4 38.2 28.6 20.0 24.3 41.6 31.9 26.2 40.1 36.3 37.0 34.2 23.7 33.9 28.7 24.2 21.9
q10c. High temperatures 24.9 23.9 23.4 26.4 41.1 36.0 22.9 29.1 22.5 20.5 23.7 14.0 44.5 32.0 26.7 14.6 18.9 36.7 18.9 17.7 23.1 26.6 32.5 23.6 22.9 29.4 25.4 45.0 27.6 24.3 24.9 17.9 16.4 29.9 36.4 14.1 22.4
q10d. Low temperatures 22.0 21.1 20.4 25.5 36.1 39.3 16.4 28.6 21.3 19.9 18.3 28.1 39.0 28.6 23.9 15.3 13.6 32.7 27.7 30.6 21.7 22.3 23.6 17.0 15.8 27.3 19.3 38.6 26.0 22.1 25.9 19.2 19.7 26.3 40.3 18.6 20.3
q10e. Breathing in smoke, fumes, powder or dust etc 19.1 18.6 17.6 24.6 27.7 38.0 15.0 23.3 23.9 13.2 19.3 27.5 27.3 20.1 19.9 14.2 15.6 17.9 27.9 26.3 16.4 23.8 26.7 13.7 18.7 23.9 24.8 29.1 25.6 28.5 24.4 18.4 11.7 29.6 38.6 12.8 18.6
q10f. Breathing in vapours such as solvents and thinners 11.2 11.2 10.9 13.0 11.9 9.4 8.8 14.1 16.6 4.5 13.8 12.3 11.3 14.7 13.5 6.3 9.1 9.1 12.3 17.5 7.3 13.0 12.3 6.7 11.9 11.0 13.6 11.2 13.0 16.3 14.4 6.2 6.0 17.1 8.9 6.3 9.0
q10g. Handling chemical substances 14.5 14.4 13.9 17.2 16.3 17.4 11.9 15.2 15.5 10.2 15.5 15.9 18.2 13.7 16.6 11.5 11.7 9.6 16.5 19.9 10.5 16.3 17.3 8.7 12.6 17.8 14.4 16.7 19.8 17.3 23.3 16.0 11.8 16.8 17.4 12.6 13.5
q10h. Radiation 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.2 3.3 3.3 5.3 3.6 6.8 4.2 5.4 5.7 3.7 4.0 3.1 5.6 4.8 5.1 3.3 3.9 8.5 4.2 5.1 4.0 5.4 5.2 7.8 5.4 6.2 6.8 3.1 5.3 4.2 4.4 4.5
q10i. Tobacco smoke from other people 20.1 19.9 19.7 20.9 22.4 28.8 18.6 14.4 20.4 27.5 25.6 27.2 37.2 28.2 19.9 5.8 9.1 19.0 28.9 27.5 17.2 22.9 15.9 15.6 22.6 19.9 29.0 25.0 17.5 16.9 11.3 6.7 14.7 35.9 28.2 8.6 13.8
q10j. Infectious materials 9.2 8.9 9.0 8.0 15.6 9.6 10.9 5.0 7.6 9.1 10.5 8.7 11.5 9.4 9.9 9.2 3.7 5.6 11.3 13.1 9.8 8.9 13.1 10.4 6.6 6.2 8.3 19.0 9.8 13.0 15.8 14.5 8.2 9.6 9.6 12.8 9.9
q11a. Tiring or painful positions 45.5 44.7 44.4 46.4 57.7 68.0 39.4 45.9 30.0 33.5 46.4 50.9 66.2 48.2 52.8 31.6 48.9 59.6 48.5 47.2 43.6 53.2 44.2 24.8 50.1 51.0 57.1 61.5 51.8 33.2 45.2 43.6 30.6 58.8 68.7 28.2 34.9
q11b. Lifting or moving people 8.1 8.1 8.7 4.8 9.4 6.5 10.7 3.6 8.6 6.0 6.9 5.0 5.7 12.4 10.9 9.0 3.9 5.9 4.5 5.9 6.8 5.5 7.9 6.6 7.1 3.1 6.6 11.3 5.1 4.8 11.4 12.1 11.1 6.6 6.5 12.7 6.0
q11c. Carrying or moving heavy loads 35.0 34.5 33.9 38.0 42.8 50.2 30.6 36.0 31.2 29.8 31.8 39.7 41.3 40.7 39.2 32.1 28.5 29.8 41.4 41.9 25.6 36.3 36.0 22.0 35.9 40.8 37.0 45.1 35.0 36.1 38.5 36.7 33.9 37.4 51.1 28.5 26.9
q11d. Standing or walking 72.9 72.6 72.9 71.0 76.9 79.8 67.1 71.0 59.6 73.5 73.5 72.8 75.0 72.8 74.9 72.0 74.1 62.1 74.1 80.4 64.7 70.5 70.2 59.1 72.9 73.1 80.0 78.8 72.7 75.3 79.4 77.6 71.6 77.2 80.0 72.3 73.3
q11e. Repetitive hand or arm movements 62.3 61.5 61.5 61.5 74.9 76.8 52.4 67.6 66.6 61.2 56.9 65.4 76.8 64.5 60.7 51.5 64.6 64.5 59.1 69.3 54.1 62.3 51.1 60.7 57.2 58.1 74.2 77.2 64.3 64.7 79.6 64.2 60.0 69.9 77.3 59.0 41.5
q11m. Wearing personal protective clothing or equipment 34.0 33.6 32.0 42.8 39.6 19.3 28.7 26.6 47.9 25.9 34.7 38.1 18.5 31.2 27.8 42.5 32.3 17.4 40.8 39.3 27.9 36.5 42.0 25.7 24.2 42.7 41.4 43.7 52.4 48.4 42.5 32.5 35.3 46.7 17.2 32.0 26.6
Information and communication Country groups Countries
EU27 EU25 EU15 NMS NM2 CC2 BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SV UK HR TR NO CH
q30b. Consulted about changes in work organisation etc 47.1 47.1 46.9 47.9 47.8 45.9 57.5 61.8 46.6 53.6 42.2 63.1 51.9 39.3 42.8 56.2 37.7 57.0 54.5 79.3 46.0 49.8 50.3 82.9 47.5 42.3 27.5 42.2 49.3 50.6 71.8 60.1 52.2 36.1 47.2 47.2 52.1
q30c. Subject to regular formal assessment of performance 40.0 39.9 39.2 44.1 41.2 32.1 43.8 43.2 55.5 32.2 39.4 51.5 42.6 34.8 27.5 42.6 25.7 43.8 46.5 64.9 37.9 38.5 44.1 52.6 44.7 41.7 34.8 40.4 40.9 31.8 62.2 44.3 53.3 34.5 31.8 59.0 59.2
q12. Well-informed about health and safety risks 83.1 83.3 82.4 88.3 80.8 42.7 79.0 88.0 88.1 83.5 89.4 91.9 77.0 77.3 68.9 89.0 80.6 82.6 86.4 85.6 75.6 91.6 73.0 78.0 84.6 89.1 84.2 78.5 88.1 81.0 96.5 85.5 89.8 87.9 39.4 85.4 89.2

Health Country groups Countries

EU27 EU25 EU15 NMS NM2 CC2 BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SV UK HR TR NO CH
q32. Consider health or safety at risk because of work 28.6 27.5 25.2 40.2 48.0 44.0 23.7 44.4 23.7 23.2 18.0 39.4 50.8 37.2 23.1 23.5 28.4 34.0 49.1 43.4 29.8 33.2 35.4 22.6 23.2 47.3 31.4 49.1 45.6 34.7 24.3 48.5 19.1 38.9 44.4 18.1 22.4
q33. Work affects health 35.4 34.3 30.6 55.8 52.9 48.5 29.0 48.4 36.1 44.2 23.7 59.2 68.1 36.0 26.9 25.7 38.6 42.6 64.2 52.4 34.4 44.6 51.6 24.9 32.2 65.3 40.9 54.4 62.3 52.2 42.5 56.5 20.8 51.8 48.2 48.3 31.1
q33a_a… hearing problems 7.2 7.1 5.9 13.5 9.7 6.4 4.5 7.2 8.2 6.1 4.8 12.6 10.3 9.5 4.4 4.1 7.7 7.2 11.1 11.6 5.8 10.9 6.5 3.8 6.7 16.4 9.9 10.5 17.5 13.4 11.6 15.3 2.6 10.2 6.1 8.3 3.1
q33a_b... problems with your vision 7.8 7.4 5.4 19.0 12.9 9.5 6.8 11.6 10.3 2.1 3.4 25.4 11.2 7.5 6.9 2.9 9.1 9.5 23.4 21.1 10.0 12.3 10.5 2.0 5.5 22.9 10.6 13.3 24.0 19.5 7.6 4.6 1.7 15.8 9.0 4.0 3.3
q33a_c... skin problems 6.6 6.3 5.3 11.4 11.6 15.3 4.3 7.2 7.7 5.9 5.0 12.8 15.7 7.7 4.4 5.6 5.7 7.5 11.2 15.3 5.6 10.1 8.2 3.4 5.0 12.5 5.2 13.0 14.6 11.6 10.7 9.9 2.7 11.4 15.5 6.2 2.8
q33a_d… backache 24.7 23.8 21.1 38.9 39.2 35.2 19.4 29.2 22.9 23.1 18.8 40.2 47.0 29.1 21.6 14.5 24.3 32.7 44.1 38.0 26.9 31.6 29.8 13.8 24.0 45.8 30.7 42.4 45.9 38.9 26.2 27.8 10.8 41.5 34.7 22.7 18.1
q33a_e.. headaches 15.5 14.7 13.1 24.2 27.7 30.8 10.5 22.1 16.5 15.9 12.0 26.9 35.4 14.1 11.9 8.7 16.9 23.1 27.5 25.4 16.7 18.0 23.7 8.7 11.6 27.6 23.9 29.5 25.7 26.2 15.7 19.7 7.0 28.6 31.0 15.2 6.1
q33a_f… stomach ache 5.8 5.5 4.9 8.6 11.9 14.5 6.7 6.5 6.3 5.3 4.2 6.4 18.7 3.9 6.4 1.9 6.5 7.2 8.2 11.3 10.4 6.4 6.3 2.7 4.8 9.6 4.5 13.6 7.1 10.1 5.2 10.5 1.4 6.4 15.1 5.9 1.9
q33a_g… muscular pains 22.8 21.9 19.4 36.2 37.0 33.8 17.2 30.3 23.7 30.0 14.8 43.0 45.7 27.0 18.8 13.8 22.3 31.5 35.5 35.7 23.8 26.5 30.0 15.6 20.0 43.9 28.8 39.2 38.2 30.3 32.8 38.2 9.4 37.6 33.5 31.6 13.1
q33a_h… respiratory difficulties 4.7 4.2 3.5 8.5 13.2 10.2 2.4 8.5 7.3 2.5 1.9 10.8 14.8 4.7 3.2 1.9 2.8 8.8 8.6 14.0 3.6 6.0 3.0 3.9 3.8 8.4 7.8 14.8 9.5 11.9 6.9 4.5 2.7 8.5 10.3 2.8 2.4
q33a_i… heart disease 2.4 2.1 1.4 5.6 8.1 6.8 0.6 4.2 2.9 0.8 1.4 7.9 2.7 1.7 1.5 0.6 2.1 1.3 6.4 7.7 1.8 4.0 1.2 1.3 2.7 6.9 3.1 9.4 5.8 5.2 1.9 2.7 0.1 3.9 7.0 1.5 0.8
q33a_j...injury(ies) 9.7 9.5 8.3 16.0 12.8 17.1 6.5 13.2 11.9 6.3 8.2 12.6 23.8 11.9 9.1 6.5 8.9 11.8 16.5 14.8 9.5 15.7 5.7 4.8 9.7 17.3 9.3 12.6 21.3 17.7 8.4 12.0 3.5 16.0 17.2 7.2 4.5
q33a_k...stress 22.3 21.7 20.2 30.4 30.9 36.8 21.0 18.0 17.4 26.7 16.0 32.4 55.3 21.4 18.3 16.2 27.1 33.4 36.9 31.0 26.6 25.7 28.0 16.2 21.0 34.9 27.6 35.0 37.7 30.7 25.4 37.7 11.8 35.2 36.9 29.0 17.0
q33a_l...overall fatigue 22.5 21.3 17.8 40.7 43.6 37.8 18.7 40.4 24.0 16.8 11.3 42.1 58.5 24.8 20.1 15.2 24.7 35.8 45.7 40.7 23.5 32.0 34.2 14.8 5.5 48.8 26.7 44.6 41.4 38.6 21.5 15.9 9.1 9.8 39.8 12.0 11.0
q33a_m...sleeping problems 8.7 8.3 7.6 11.9 15.9 21.0 9.0 13.3 9.2 9.6 4.4 17.4 17.2 7.6 9.1 6.2 8.1 9.4 19.6 19.1 11.5 9.2 6.1 6.9 6.2 11.8 10.8 16.7 18.9 11.0 13.1 19.4 5.9 10.4 21.7 10.9 5.4
q33a_n...allergies 4.0 3.8 3.2 7.2 7.0 10.5 2.6 6.1 3.7 3.1 2.3 8.2 11.1 4.0 3.7 1.8 4.3 7.5 7.5 8.4 5.1 6.1 4.2 2.5 2.5 8.2 4.7 7.3 9.0 8.4 7.4 7.3 0.8 5.7 10.9 4.8 3.3
q33a_o...anxiety 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.2 8.9 12.1 6.6 16.5 3.0 2.0 1.5 30.0 35.3 8.4 10.8 7.0 12.6 18.3 21.8 15.2 10.6 7.5 12.2 2.6 1.3 5.6 13.6 6.4 9.3 4.6 6.6 16.6 6.1 10.8 12.2 10.8 3.4
q33a_p... Irritability 10.5 10.4 10.3 11.5 11.0 8.1 12.1 14.1 3.5 14.4 5.4 26.8 27.3 11.4 11.4 8.3 15.0 16.2 20.6 18.4 15.3 15.0 25.1 9.6 8.5 8.8 16.0 10.0 24.3 20.0 14.8 14.7 6.2 19.8 7.3 13.6 6.1
q35. Able to do same job when 60 58.2 58.9 61.0 47.0 47.7 31.3 52.3 44.2 54.5 68.8 73.6 58.8 40.5 53.5 48.6 53.2 59.9 55.8 53.9 54.9 54.4 52.3 51.9 72.1 59.9 43.6 45.7 48.8 33.7 37.4 65.2 69.7 63.5 42.7 30.4 72.0 68.1
q34a_d. Absent for health problems in previous year 22.9 23.4 23.5 22.8 13.6 18.7 28.8 20.2 28.6 32.9 28.2 27.5 14.1 14.2 19.4 21.4 25.2 17.7 23.9 21.8 31.7 23.8 41.0 33.7 20.9 19.9 13.5 11.4 28.3 22.8 44.7 28.0 22.6 19.4 18.7 27.3 19.2
q34b_ef. Average days health-related absence in previous year 4.6 4.7 4.5 5.4 2.5 5.1 7.0 4.3 5.5 6.6 3.5 4.6 2.8 3.6 5.5 3.9 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.3 5.4 5.0 3.8 8.6 3.4 5.5 8.6 2.0 8.7 5.2 8.5 6.7 3.7 9.4 4.8 7.1 4.0

Work and family life Country groups Countries

EU27 EU25 EU15 NMS NM2 CC2 BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SV UK HR TR NO CH
q18. Working hours fit family / social commitments well or very well 79.4 79.8 80.9 73.4 73.8 64.1 83.1 73.7 79.5 87.8 85.5 75.8 57.9 75.4 80.9 80.6 73.0 76.8 67.0 76.0 83.4 73.1 79.2 84.6 88.0 70.6 82.4 73.8 74.2 78.3 86.0 79.4 84.8 74.9 63.4 88.1 87.8
q19. Contacted about work outside normal working hours 22.1 22.5 22.2 23.9 15.1 16.6 30.9 11.3 31.3 33.7 25.8 36.7 12.1 24.2 8.3 30.5 12.7 9.7 30.8 14.7 17.0 26.5 25.5 39.3 25.1 21.4 19.6 16.4 21.7 22.4 44.2 45.3 24.4 13.3 16.8 49.0 26.4
ef4c. Caring for and educating your children every day for an hour or more28.8 28.2 27.3 33.1 37.8 23.3 42.1 35.6 20.1 36.5 18.0 39.4 32.7 14.9 34.6 36.1 27.3 39.7 37.9 33.3 43.8 42.7 35.1 45.3 28.0 34.7 40.6 38.4 34.5 28.4 27.5 30.6 28.4 35.2 22.4 46.8 28.4
ef4d. Cooking and housework 46.4 46.2 46.8 42.4 50.6 22.1 54.4 46.3 30.2 57.0 40.9 58.1 37.5 37.8 51.5 58.0 37.9 45.5 61.3 47.2 47.9 41.4 29.6 55.8 40.4 44.3 51.6 52.0 48.3 40.4 50.2 55.1 57.9 42.7 20.6 59.6 51.6

Job satisfaction Country groups Countries

EU27 EU25 EU15 NMS NM2 CC2 BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SV UK HR TR NO CH
q36. Satisfied or very satisfied with working conditions 82.3 83.7 84.8 77.2 60.7 53.5 89.5 66.6 80.0 93.4 89.2 75.0 59.9 78.6 82.1 86.5 76.2 83.3 70.2 67.4 86.5 75.9 81.1 89.2 89.6 78.5 84.9 58.8 71.6 75.9 84.5 85.3 92.7 71.9 52.2 93.0 91.2
q37a_ef. I might lose my job in the next 6 months 13.7 13.3 11.3 25.2 19.6 19.2 9.0 22.9 32.2 7.2 12.7 19.5 20.9 15.0 7.7 9.5 8.9 14.2 19.0 23.3 5.5 22.1 15.2 17.8 8.9 26.6 19.3 18.5 27.3 15.1 13.3 20.4 6.8 19.4 19.1 7.2 12.1
q37b_ef. I am well paid for the work I do 43.2 44.3 47.0 29.0 25.1 26.6 55.1 28.4 34.9 53.9 58.4 33.6 32.3 47.7 35.7 56.5 33.8 55.3 31.6 32.1 57.8 18.3 43.8 58.0 50.6 28.7 28.6 24.1 35.3 25.1 35.5 40.4 53.6 39.6 25.7 47.2 58.8
q37c_ef. My job offers good prospects for career advancement 31.0 31.6 33.0 23.9 20.1 21.1 34.7 25.3 25.1 39.1 30.4 24.0 27.0 28.6 36.6 42.0 23.6 32.5 27.8 22.7 40.5 18.7 43.7 34.6 33.7 24.8 34.6 18.4 30.6 18.0 35.0 26.8 42.4 26.3 20.8 26.6 34.3

Structure of workforce Country groups Countries

EU27 EU25 EU15 NMS NM2 CC2 BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SV UK HR TR NO CH
q2d_ef. Seniority (mean years) 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.4 9.4 11.8 12.0 7.7 8.2 7.9 10.2 7.3 11.3 8.8 10.1 9.2 11.8 10.9 7.4 7.9 11.0 7.8 10.5 9.7 10.3 10.7 9.8 10.0 11.8 8.4 10.8 10.4 7.5 11.0 11.9 10.3 9.4

Working time Country groups Countries

EU27 EU25 EU15 NMS NM2 CC2 BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SV UK HR TR NO CH
q8a_ef. Mean usual weekly working hours 38.6 38.2 37.4 42.8 45.9 53.3 37.2 44.3 41.4 36.0 37.7 40.0 45.4 40.3 35.5 37.9 38.4 39.8 41.2 40.6 38.2 42.4 40.6 33.0 39.8 43.9 41.9 46.4 41.6 43.1 37.6 37.9 34.8 43.1 54.1 34.5 37.2
q8b. % usually working five days per week 65.1 66.1 66.5 63.6 48.8 22.6 61.3 63.0 71.0 75.2 73.0 74.1 51.0 64.5 71.4 65.8 62.0 68.2 68.5 69.6 78.0 71.2 65.1 52.8 67.3 56.0 71.6 44.2 65.9 73.0 81.4 75.2 61.4 59.0 19.9 63.9 64.2
q9a. % with more than one job 6.2 6.2 5.9 8.0 5.7 5.7 7.2 5.3 9.6 15.0 6.4 13.4 10.1 6.0 3.0 6.5 6.1 3.4 13.7 6.5 5.1 7.4 10.0 9.9 6.6 6.9 4.4 5.8 9.9 9.8 10.3 10.6 3.8 7.2 5.6 16.4 10.8
q13_ef. Daily commuting time (return, in minutes) 41.6 41.1 40.9 42.0 50.2 40.4 41.1 39.5 38.2 40.9 45.0 48.9 40.1 38.1 37.1 42.0 34.7 32.2 46.2 41.2 39.4 45.7 33.9 50.7 31.8 42.2 33.4 53.9 35.4 44.3 38.5 41.7 45.4 38.5 40.5 31.6 36.6
q14e_ef. Long working days 16.9 15.9 15.1 20.3 33.2 31.0 17.9 24.3 20.0 14.5 12.9 19.1 25.9 14.0 13.8 22.1 15.4 13.7 25.0 19.6 11.1 19.6 19.5 12.7 20.1 20.6 13.0 36.3 17.8 21.2 15.7 14.5 17.6 17.0 32.1 13.4 11.7
q16a_a. Work same number of hours each day 58.4 58.5 58.6 57.9 56.7 66.6 52.2 70.7 50.7 34.2 57.4 54.5 67.1 70.8 56.4 64.2 60.9 76.6 60.3 62.7 64.0 64.0 73.3 48.5 45.5 57.6 76.6 52.1 54.7 57.9 47.7 44.5 58.2 70.9 66.3 54.7 47.0
q16a_b. Work same number of days each week 74.0 74.1 75.1 68.9 71.7 74.1 77.2 75.5 64.8 70.2 74.3 62.1 83.4 82.6 75.0 83.0 68.2 89.9 72.0 72.2 84.1 71.9 81.8 72.1 68.6 68.9 87.2 70.4 70.1 65.8 71.1 66.4 76.1 81.3 73.6 64.3 75.9
q16a_c. Work fixed starting and finishing times 60.7 61.2 60.8 63.6 52.7 56.2 58.2 73.5 60.6 56.1 65.9 57.6 64.7 69.4 61.5 63.1 51.5 78.7 66.4 60.3 68.0 67.0 72.9 51.4 52.3 63.9 76.9 45.8 58.0 64.3 49.1 59.9 57.5 75.8 54.8 66.9 52.4
q16a_d. Work shifts 17.3 17.1 16.0 23.0 21.0 8.2 13.2 21.0 22.2 9.3 15.7 20.4 13.0 22.2 14.9 12.0 18.1 11.8 21.9 19.4 13.9 20.7 22.3 11.8 13.2 23.5 10.3 21.0 30.0 27.5 24.3 16.0 15.4 33.5 6.4 23.4 12.9
q17a. % with less flexible schedules 65.3 65.2 64.1 71.2 66.7 41.3 61.7 80.0 69.0 49.3 70.2 67.7 62.5 76.7 64.4 60.8 56.2 76.9 79.5 72.7 65.1 75.6 76.8 46.5 58.1 68.7 79.0 62.4 68.2 80.0 53.4 40.7 64.1 76.7 38.8 57.6 43.6
 Annex 4: Expert questionnaire development group

Advisory Committee National experts

Cornelia Moser
Governments
Statistics Austria
Birgit Stimmer
Austria
Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour
Luc van Hamme
Austria
Federal Public Service Employment, Labour and Social
Andreas Horst Dialogue
Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs Belgium
Germany Renáta Kyzlinková
Paolo Reboani Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs
Ministry of Labour and Social Policy Czech Republic
Italy Ole Olsen
Inger Ohlsson (ex-member) National Institute of Occupational Health
National Institute for Working Life Denmark
Sweden Ester Rünkla
Ministry of Social Affairs
Employers Estonia
Natascha Waltke (ex-member) Damien Cartron
UNICE Centre d'Etudes de l'Emploi
Belgium France
Heitor Salgueiro Michel Gollac
Confederation of Portuguese Industry Centre d’Etudes de l’Emploi
Portugal France
Maria Angeles Asenjo Sylvie Hamon Cholet
CNC Ministry of Labour
Spain France
Marie-Louise Thorsén Lind (ex-member) Pekki Ylöstalo
Confederation of Swedish Enterprise Ministry of Labour
Sweden Finland
Hanna Sutela
Workers Statistics Finland
Herman Fonck Finland
Confederarion of Christian Trade Unions (CSC-AVC) Beate Beermann
Belgium Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Erik Pentenga (FIOSH)
Dutch Trade Union Federation (FNV) Germany
Netherlands Christos Ioannou
Pavle Vrhovec Athens University of Economics and Business
Union of Free Trade Unions of Slovenia (ZSSS) Greece
Slovenia Michalis Petrakos
Agilis
European Commission Greece
Dimitrios Dimitriou Eva Berde
DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities University of Budapest
Belgium Hungary
Jean-Francois Lebrun Gerry Hughes
DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI)
Belgium Ireland
Philip J. O’Connell
Committee of Experts
Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI)
Jouko Nätti Ireland
University of Jyväskylä Maurizio Curtarelli
Finland (Isfol)
Fred Huijgen Italy
University of Nijmegen Marinella Giovine
Netherlands (Isfol)
Italy

105
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Laura Incagli European Commission

(Isfol) Eleni Dapergola
Italy DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities
Zaiga Priede Belgium
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia
Anne Degrand-Guillaud
Latvia
DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities
Gintare Buzinskaite
Belgium
Ministry of Social Security and Labour
Lithuania Angel Fuente
DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities
Nadine Welter
Luxembourg
Ministry for Work and Employment
Luxembourg Didier Dupré
Saviour Rizzo Eurostat
University of Malta Luxembourg
Malta Antti Karjalainen
Steven Dhondt Eurostat
TNO Work and Employment Luxembourg
Netherlands
Peter Smulders
European and international institutions
TNO Work and Employment
Marc Sapir
Netherlands
Trade Union Technical Bureau (TUTB)
Małgorzata Pośniak
Belgium
National Research Institute
Paul Swaim
Poland
Employment Analysis and Policy Division, OECD
Maria João Rebelo
France
Departamento de Estudos, Estatistica e Planeamento
Pascal Paoli
Portugal
The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
Ivan Svetlik
(OSHA)
University of Ljubljana
Spain
Slovenia
Elke Schneider
Maria Antalova
The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
University of Economics
(OSHA)
Slovakia
Spain
Clotilde Nogareda
Sangheon Lee
National Working Conditions Centre
Programme on Conditions of Work and Employment,
Spain
International Labour Office
Kerstin Fredriksson Switzerland
Statistics Sweden
Sweden
Anders Wikman Non-EU partners
National Institute for Working Life Torkel Sandegren
Sweden Royal Ministry of Labour and Government Affairs
Brendan Burchell Norway
University of Cambridge Margaret Graf
United Kingdom State Secretariat of Economic Affairs
Simon Clarke Switzerland
Health and Safety Executive Ulrich Pekruhl
United Kingdom University of Applied Sciences
Svetla Karova Switzerland
Confederation of Independent Trade Unions
Bulgaria
Jeana Apostol
National Institute of Statistics
Romania
Dilsen Lostar
Kocaeli University
Turkey

106
 Annex 5: Network of national fieldwork institutes

Coordination centre Greece

Metron Analysis SA
Gallup Europe 6 Sinopsis Str.
Gallup Organisation Europe SA 115 27 Athens
Avenue Michel Ange 70
1000 Brussels Hungary
Gallup Organisation
Members of the network Fö tér 1, Zichy Kastély
1033 Budapest
Austria
Ireland
SPECTRA Marktforschung
Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI)
Brucknerstrasse 3–5
4 Burlington Road
4020 Linz
Dublin 4
Belgium
Italy
IRB Europe Sprl
Demoskopea SpA
81 Boulevard Louis Schmidtlaan
Via Salaria 290/Via Rubicone 41
1040 Brussels
00199 Rome
Cyprus
Latvia
Cymar Market Research Ltd
Latvian Facts Ltd
1686 Nicosia
Brivibas str. 106-2
Digeni Akrita,
1001 Riga
40 Strovolos 2045
Lithuania
Czech Republic
Baltic Surveys Ltd
Focus Centre for Social and Market Analysis
Sermuksniu 6a
Vrchlického sad 4
2001 Vilnius
602 00 Brno
Luxembourg
Denmark Gallup Luxembourg
Vilstrup Rue Emile Mark 44, BP 48
Frederiksborggade 18 L-4501 Differdange
1360 Koebenhavn
Malta
Estonia Misco International
SAAR POLL Ltd 3rd Floor, Regency House
10119 Tallinn Republic Street
VLT04 Valletta
Finland
Taloustutkimus Oy Netherlands
Lemuntie 9 Rsvo
00510 Helsinki Gedempte Gracht 44b
1506 CH Zaandam
France
Efficience 3 Poland
26 rue Buirette Gallup Organisation Poland
BP 202 Krzywickiego 34
71057 Reims Cedex 02-078 Warsaw

Germany Portugal
IFAK Institut GmbH & Co. Markt- und Sozialforschung Intercampus LDA
Postfach 13 51 Av. António Augusto de Aguiar, 106 5/6
65221 Taunusstein 1050-019 Lisbon

107
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Slovakia Croatia
Focus Centre for Social and Market Analysis Gallup Organisation Croatia
Grossinglova 37 Zagreb
81000 Bratislava Ul. Grada Vukovara 62A
10000 Zagreb
Slovenia
CATI d.o.o.
Romania
Trzaska cesta 2
Gallup Organisation Romania
1000 Ljubljana
78151 Bucharest Bd. Nicolae Titulescu
Nr. 1, Bl. A7, Sc. 4, Et. 8, Ap. 116-117, Sector 1.
Spain
Gallup Spain
Victor de la Serna 31-33 Post. Turkey
28016 Madrid TRIA Research Consultancy
Süleyman Nazif Sk. Aydin Apt. No : 24/6
Sweden Nisantasi
IMRI – International Market Research Institute AB 80220 Istanbul
Landsvägen 52
172 63 Stockholm Norway
MMI AS
United Kindgom
PO Box 9143
ICM Research
0133 Groenland
Knighton House
56 Mortimer Street
Switzerland
London W1W 7RT
MIS Trend
Bulgaria Pont Bessière 3
Vitosha Research 1005 Lausanne
5 Alexander Zhendov Street
1113 Sofia

108
 Annex 6: Survey questionnaire

Household data
(NEW)
HH1. I’d like to start by asking you a few questions about your household.
Including yourself, can you please tell me how many people live in this household?

Number of people living in household:……………………………………

99 - Refusal (spontaneous)

(NEW)
HH2.
INTERVIEWER: NOW OBTAIN INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED TO ENTER ON
HOUSEHOLD GRID ON NEXT PAGE, STARTING WITH THE RESPONDENT

a. (INTERVIEWER.: CODE GENDER OF RESPONDENT IN GRID BELOW)

b. Starting with yourself, how old are you?
c. (INTERVIEWER.: SKIP FOR RESPONDENT)
SHOW CARD D
d. What is your principal economic status?

(NEW)
HH3.
INTERVIEWER: FOR SECOND HOUSEHOLD MEMBER, START WITH THE OLDEST
MEMBER OF THE HOUSEHOLD. REPEAT GRID QUESTIONS A-D FOR ALL OTHER
HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.

Now thinking about the other members of your household, starting with the oldest …

a. Could you tell me whether this is a male or a female?

b. How old is he/she?
SHOW CARD C
c. What is this person’s relationship to you? Is he/she your …?
SHOW CARD D
d. And what is this person’s principal economic status?

109
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

HOUSEHOLD GRID

A B C D
INTERVIEWER:
Code for Relationship to respondent Principal economic status?
respondent Age

Male Female Code from list below Code from list below
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
1 Respondent 1 2 …… 88 99
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
2 Person 2 1 2 …… 88 99 88 99
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
3 Person 3 1 2 …… 88 99 88 99
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
4 Person 4 1 2 …… 88 99 88 99
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
5 Person 5 1 2 …… 88 99 88 99
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
6 Person 6 1 2 …… 88 99 88 99
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
7 Person 7 1 2 …… 88 99 88 99
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
8 Person 8 1 2 …… 88 99 88 99
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
9 Person 9 1 2 …… 88 99 88 99
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
10 Person 10 1 2 …… 88 99 88 99

888 - DK/No opinion

(spontaneous)
999 - Refusal
(spontaneous)

RELATIONSHIP CODES [CARD C] ECONOMIC STATUS CODES [CARD D]:

01 - spouse/partner 01 - at work as employee or employer/self-employed

02 - son/daughter 02 - at work, on child-care leave or other leave
03 - parent, step-parent or parent in law 03 - at work as relative assisting on family farm or business *
04 - daughter or son in law 04 - unemployed less than 12 months
05 - grandchild 05 - unemployed 12 months or more
06 - brother/sister (incl. half and step 06 - unable to work due to long-term illness or disability
siblings) 07 - retired
07 - other relative 08 - full time homemaker/ responsible for ordinary shopping and looking after
08 - other non relative the home
09 - in education (at school, university, etc.) / student
88 - DK/No opinion (spontaneous) 10 -other
99 - Refusal (spontaneous)
88 - DK/No opinion (spontaneous)
99 - Refusal (spontaneous)

* If paid a formal wage or salary for work in family farm or business, code as 1
(‘at work as employee’)

110
 Annex 6: Survey questionnaire

Main questionnaire

(MODIFIED)
Q1A Are you a citizen of …(country where the survey is being carried out)?
1 - Yes ------------------------------------- > GO TO Q2A
2 - No ------------------------------------------ > CONTINUE WITH Q1B.
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous) ------ > GO TO Q2A
9 - Refusal (spontaneous) --------------- > GO TO Q2A

(MODIFIED)
Q1B Are you a citizen of …?
1 - Another EU member state [IN NON-EU COUNTRIES: An EU member state]
2 - One of the EU candidate countries (i.e. Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Croatia)
3 - Another country
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
9 - Refusal (spontaneous)

(TREND)
Q2A What is the title of your main paid job? By main paid job, we mean the one where you
spend most hours.
INTERVIEWER.: ASK AND WRITE IN FULL DETAILS - PROBE FOR AS MUCH
INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE WITH VIEW TO OBTAINING ACCURATE 2-DIGIT ISCO
CLASSIFICATION

…………………………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………………..……
88 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
99 - Refusal (spontaneous)

(TREND)
Q2B How old were you when you stopped full-time education?

Age: ……………………………………

77 - if still studying
99 - Refusal (spontaneous)
(NEW)
Q2C How many years have you been in paid employment since the age at which you stopped
full-time education?

Number of years:……………………………………

77 - if still a full time-student

99 - Refusal (spontaneous)

111
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

(TREND)
Q2D How many years have you been in your company or organisation?

Number of years:……………………………………

00 - if less than 1 year

77 – not applicable
88 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
99 - Refusal (spontaneous)

(TREND)
Q3A Are you mainly ... ?
SHOW CARD Q3A - READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY!

1 - Self-employed without employees ------- > GO TO Q4

2 - Self-employed with employees ----------- > GO TO Q4
3 - Employed-------------------------------------------- > CONTINUE WITH Q3B
4 - Other ----------------------------------------- > GO TO Q4
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous) ------------ > GO TO Q4
9 - Refusal (spontaneous) --------------------- > GO TO Q4

(MODIFIED)
Q3B What kind of employment contract do you have?
SHOW CARD Q3B - READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY!

1 - An indefinite contract ------------------------------- > GO TO Q4

2 - A fixed term contract--------------------------------------- > CONTINUE WITH Q3C
3 - A temporary employment agency contract ------- > GO TO Q4
4 - An apprenticeship or other training scheme ------ > GO TO Q4
5 - No contract -------------------------------------------- > GO TO Q4
6 - Other (spontaneous) ---------------------------------- > GO TO Q4
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous) ---------------------- > GO TO Q4
9 - Refusal (spontaneous) ------------------------------- > GO TO Q4

(TREND)
Q3C What is the exact duration of the contract in number of years and months?
INTERVIEWER.: IF LESS THAN 1 YEAR, CODE '00' IN BOX 'YEARS' AND ENTER THE
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN BOX 'MONTHS' - IF "DK/NO OPINION", CODE '88' IN BOTH
BOXES. IF THE FIXED-TERM CONTRACT DOES NOT HAVE AN EXACT DURATION
CODE ‘77’ IN BOTH BOXES

Number of years:……………………
00 - if less than 1 year
77 – no exact duration
88 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
99 - Refusal (spontaneous)

Number of months:……………………
77 - no exact duration
88 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
99 - Refusal (spontaneous)

112
 Annex 6: Survey questionnaire

(TREND)
Q4 What is the main activity of the company or organisation where you work ?
INTERVIEWER.: ASK AND WRITE IN FULL DETAILS - PROBE FOR AS MUCH
INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE!

……………………………………………………………………………..……
88 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
99 - Refusal (spontaneous)

(MODIFIED TREND) (EF2000)

Q5 Are you working in the …?
1 - private sector
2 - public sector
3 - joint private-public organisation or company
4 - non-for-profit sector, NGO
5 - other
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
9 - Refusal (spontaneous)

(TREND)

SHOW CARD Q6

Q6. How many people in total work in the local unit of the establishment where you work?
01 - 1 (interviewee works alone)
02 - 2-4
03 - 5-9
04 - 10-49
05 - 50-99
06 - 100-249
07 - 250-499
08 - 500 and over
88 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
99 - Refusal (spontaneous)
(TREND)
Q7 How many people work under your supervision, for whom pay increases, bonuses or
promotion depend directly on you?

…………………… Number of people:

0000 - none
8888- DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
9999 - Refusal (spontaneous)

113
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

(TREND)
Q8a How many hours do you usually work per week in your main paid job?
INTERVIEWER: EXCLUDING LUNCH BREAK AND EXCLUDING TIME SPENT
TRAVELLING TO AND FROM WORK - IF 30 MINUTES OR MORE, ROUND UP TO NEXT
HOUR

Number of hours per week:……………………

888 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
999 - Refusal (spontaneous)

(NEW)
Q8B How many days per week do you usually work in your main paid job?

Number of days per week:……………………

8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
9 - Refusal (spontaneous)

(MODIFIED)
Q9A Besides your main paid job, do you have any other paid job(s)?
(IF YES) Is it / are they...?
SHOW CARD Q9A - READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY!
1 - No other paid job --------------------- > GO TO Q10
2 - Yes, regular ------------------------------- >CONTINUE WITH Q9B
3 - Yes, occasional ----------------------- > GO TO Q10
4 - Yes, seasonal -------------------------- > GO TO Q10
5 - Other (spontaneous) ------------------ > GO TO Q10
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous) ------- > GO TO Q10
9 - Refusal (spontaneous) ---------------- > GO TO Q10

(MODIFIED)
Q9B How many hours a week on average do you work in job(s) other than your main paid
job?
INTERVIEWER.: IF 30 MINUTES OR MORE, ROUND UP TO THE NEXT HOUR

Number of hours:……………………
888 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
999 - Refusal (spontaneous)

114
 Annex 6: Survey questionnaire

(MODIFIED)
Q10 Please tell me, using the following scale, are you exposed at work to ...?
SHOW CARD Q10 WITH SCALE - ONE ANSWER ONLY PER LINE!

READ OUT –ROTATE – MARK IN Almost Around Around Around

All of Almost
“R” COLUMN “R” WHERE YOU START all of  of the half of
of the Never DK Ref.
the time never
ASKING WITH AN “X” MARK the time time the time time
A - Vibrations from hand tools,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
machinery, etc.
B - Noise so loud that you would have
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
to raise your voice to talk to people
C - High temperatures which make you
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
perspire even when not working
D - Low temperatures whether indoors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
or outdoors
E - Breathing in smoke, fumes (such as
welding or exhaust fumes), powder
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
or dust (such as wood dust or
mineral dust) etc. (MODIFIED)
F - Breathing in vapours such as
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
solvents and thinners (NEW)
G - Handling or being in skin contact
with chemical products or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
substances (MODIFIED)
H - Radiation such as X rays,
radioactive radiation, welding light, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
laser beams
I - Tobacco smoke from other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(NEW)

J - Handling or being in direct contact

with materials which can be
infectious, such as waste, bodily 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
fluids, laboratory materials, etc
(NEW)

115
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

(MODIFIED)
Q11 Please tell me, using the same scale, does your main paid job involve ...?
SHOW SAME CARD (Q10) WITH SCALE - ONE ANSWER ONLY PER
LINE!

READ OUT –ROTATE – MARK IN Almost Around Around Around

All of Almost
“R” COLUMN “R” WHERE YOU START all of  of the half of
of the Never DK Ref.
the time never
ASKING WITH AN “X” MARK the time time the time time
A - Tiring or painful positions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
B - Lifting or moving people (NEW) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
C - Carrying or moving heavy loads 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
D - Standing or walking (NEW) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

E - Repetitive hand or arm movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

F - Working at company / organisation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
premise
G - Teleworking from home with a PC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

H - Working at home, excluding

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
telework
I - Working in places other than home
or company/ organisation premises, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
e.g. client’s premises, on the road
J - Dealing directly with people who
are not employees at your
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
workplace such as customers,
passengers, pupils, patients, etc.
K - Working with computers: PCs,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
network, mainframe
L – Using internet / email for
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
professional purposes (NEW)
M - Wearing personal protective
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
clothing or equipment

(MODIFIED)
Q12 Regarding the health and safety risks related to performance of your job, how well
informed would you say you are?
1 - Very well informed
2 - Well informed
3 - Not very well informed
4 - Not at all well informed
7 - Not applicable (spontaneous)
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
9 - Refusal (spontaneous)

116
 Annex 6: Survey questionnaire

(TREND)
Q13 In total, how many minutes per day do you normally spend travelling from home to work
and back?

Number minutes per day:……………………

888 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
999 - Refusal (spontaneous)

(TREND)
Q14A Normally, how many times a month do you work at night, for at least 2 hours between
10.00 pm and 05.00 am?

Number of nights per month:……………………

00 - never
88 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
99 - Refusal (spontaneous)
(TREND)
Q14B And how many times a month do you work in the evening, for at least 2 hours between
6.00 pm and 10.00 pm?

Number of evenings per month:……………………

00 - never
88 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
99 - Refusal (spontaneous)
(TREND)
Q14C And how many times a month do you work on Sundays?

Number of Sundays per month:……………………

00 - never
88 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
99 - Refusal (spontaneous)
(TREND)
Q14D And how many times a month do you work on Saturdays?

Number of Saturdays per month:……………………

00 - never
88 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
99 - Refusal (spontaneous)
(TREND)
Q14E And how many times a month do you work more than 10 hours a day?

Number of times the person works more than 10 hours a day:……………………

00 - never
88 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
99 - Refusal (spontaneous)

117
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

(MODIFIED)
Q15A Do you work part-time or full-time?
1 - Part-time --------------------------------------- > CONTINUE WITH Q15B
2 - Full-time ------------------------ > GO TO Q16A
9 - Refusal (spontaneous) ------ > GO TO Q16A

(MODIFIED)
Q15B Would you like to work...?

1 - Full-time
2 - More hours but not full-time
3 - The same number of hours
4 - Less hours
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
9 - Refusal (spontaneous)

(MODIFIED)
Q16A Do you work...?

READ OUT Yes No DK Refusal

A -The same number of hours every day 1 2 8 9
B - The same number of days every week 1 2 8 9
C - Fixed starting and finishing times 1 2 8 9
D - Shifts 1 2 8 9

IF Q16A_D “SHIFTS”=1 “YES” GO TO

Q16B, ALL OTHERS GO TO Q17A
(MODIFIED)
Q16B Do you work...?
SHOW CARD Q16B - READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY!

1 - daily split shifts (with a break of at least 4 hours in between)

2 - permanent shifts (morning, afternoon or night)
3 - alternating / rotating shifts
4 - Other (spontaneous)
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
9 - Refusal (spontaneous)

118
 Annex 6: Survey questionnaire

(MODIFIED)
Q17A How are your working time arrangements set?
SHOW CARD Q17A - READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY!
1 - They are set by the company / organisation
with no possibility for changes ------------------------------- > CONTINUE WITH Q17B
2 - You can choose between several fixed working
schedules determined by the company/ organisation ------ > CONTINUE WITH Q17B
3 - You can adapt your working
hours within certain limits (eg. flexitime) ---------------------------- > GO TO Q18
4 - Your working hours are entirely determined by yourself ----------- > GO TO Q18
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous) ----------- > GO TO Q18
9 - Refusal (spontaneous) --------------------- > GO TO Q18

(MODIFIED TREND)
Q17B Do changes to your work schedule occur regularly? (IF YES) How long before are you informed
about these changes?

SHOW CARD Q17B - READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY!

1 - No
2 - Yes, the same day
3 - Yes, the day before
4 - Yes, several days in advance
5 - Yes, several weeks in advance
6 - Other (spontaneous)
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
9 - Refusal (spontaneous)

(TREND)
Q18 In general, do your working hours fit in with your family or social commitments outside work
very well, well, not very well or not at all well?
1 - Very well
2 - Well
3 - Not very well
4 - Not at all well
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
9 - Refusal (spontaneous)

(NEW)
Q19 In the past twelve months, have you been contacted, e.g. by email or telephone, in matters
concerning your main paid job outside your normal working hours?

SHOW CARD Q19 - READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY!

1 - Every day
2 - At least once a week
3 - A couple of times a month
4 - Less often
5 - Never
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
9 - Refusal (spontaneous)

119
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

(MODIFIED)
Q20A Please tell me, does your job involve short repetitive tasks of less than...?
INTERVIEWER: IF NECESSARY, SPECIFY THAT WE MEAN TASKS AND NOT
MOVEMENTS SUCH AS CLICKING THE MOUSE BUTTON!

READ OUT Yes No DK Refusal

A - 1 minute 1 2 8 9
B- 10 minutes 1 2 8 9

(TREND)
Q20B And, does your job involve ...?
SHOW CARD Q20B WITH SCALE -ONE ANSWER ONLY PER LINE!

READ OUT –ROTATE – MARK IN Almost Around Around Around

All of Almost
“R” COLUMN “R” WHERE YOU START all of the  of the half of
of the Never DK Refusal
the time never
ASKING WITH AN “X” MARK time time the time time
A - working at very high speed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
B- working to tight deadlines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

(TREND MODIFIED, C to include ‘or performance’)

Q21 On the whole, is your pace of work dependent, or not, on...?
READ OUT Yes No DK Refusal
A - the work done by colleagues 1 2 8 9
B - direct demands from people such as
1 2 8 9
customers, passengers, pupils, patients, etc.
C - numerical production targets or performance
1 2 8 9
targets
D - automatic speed of a machine or movement
1 2 8 9
of a product
E - the direct control of your boss 1 2 8 9

(TREND)
Q22A How often do you have to interrupt a task you are doing in order to take on an
unforeseen task?
SHOW CARD Q22A - READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY!
1 - Very often ----------------------- > CONTINUE WITH Q22B
2 - Fairly often ----------------------- > CONTINUE WITH Q22B
3 – Occasionally --------------------- > CONTINUE WITH Q22B
4 - Never ------------------------------------ > GO TO Q23
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous) ------- > GO TO Q23
9 - Refusal (spontaneous) ---------------- > GO TO Q23

120
 Annex 6: Survey questionnaire

(TREND)
Q22B For your work, are these interruptions...

SHOW CARD Q22B - READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY!

1 - Disruptive
2 - Without consequences
3 - Positive
7 - Not relevant (spontaneous)
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
9 - Refusal (spontaneous)

(TREND)
Q23 Generally, does your main paid job involve, or not ...?
READ OUT Yes No DK Refusal
A - meeting precise quality standards 1 2 8 9
B - assessing yourself the quality of your own
1 2 8 9
work
C - solving unforeseen problems on your own 1 2 8 9
D - monotonous tasks 1 2 8 9
E - complex tasks 1 2 8 9
F - learning new things 1 2 8 9

(TREND)
Q24 Are you able, or not, to choose or change...?
READ OUT Yes No DK Refusal
A - your order of tasks 1 2 8 9
B - your methods of work 1 2 8 9
C - your speed or rate of work 1 2 8 9

121
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

(MODIFIED)
Q25 For each of the following statements, please select the response which best describes your work
situation.

SHOW CARD Q25 WITH SCALE - ONE ANSWER ONLY PER LINE!

Almost Almost
READ OUT Often Sometimes Rarely DK Refusal
always never

A - You can get assistance from colleagues

1 2 3 4 5 8 9
if you ask for it
B - You can get assistance from your
superiors / boss if you ask for it 1 2 3 4 5 8 9
(MODIFIED)

C - You can get external assistance if you

1 2 3 4 5 8 9
ask for it (MODIFIED)
D - You have influence over the choice of
1 2 3 4 5 8 9
your working partners
E - You can take your break when you wish 1 2 3 4 5 8 9
F - You have enough time to get the job
1 2 3 4 5 8 9
done
G - You are free to decide when to take
1 2 3 4 5 8 9
holidays or days off
H - At work, you have the opportunity to do
1 2 3 4 5 8 9
what you do best (NEW)
I - Your job gives you the feeling of work
1 2 3 4 5 8 9
well done (NEW)
J - You are able to apply your own ideas in
1 2 3 4 5 8 9
your work (NEW)
K - You have the feeling of doing useful
1 2 3 4 5 8 9
work (NEW)
L - You find your job intellectually
1 2 3 4 5 8 9
demanding (NEW)
M - You find your job emotionally
1 2 3 4 5 8 9
demanding (NEW)

(MODIFIED)
Q26A Does your job involve rotating tasks between yourself and colleagues?
1 – Yes ------------------------------------- > CONTINUE WITH Q26A.1.
2 - No ---------------------------------- > GO TO Q26B
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous) -- > GO TO Q26B
9 - Refusal (spontaneous) ----------- > GO TO Q26B

122
 Annex 6: Survey questionnaire

(NEW)
26A.1 Do the tasks require different skills?
1 - Yes
2 - No
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
9 - Refusal (spontaneous)

(NEW)
26A.2 Who decides the division of the tasks?

READ OUT Yes No DK Refusal

A - Your boss / manager 1 2 8 9
B - Decided by people who are rotating tasks 1 2 8 9

(MODIFIED)
Q26.B Does your job involve doing all or part of your work in a team?
1 - Yes ------------------------------------------- > CONTINUE WITH Q26.B1.
2 - No ----------------------------------------- > GO TO Q27
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous) --------- > GO TO Q27
9 - Refusal (spontaneous) ------------------ > GO TO Q27

(NEW)
Q26B.1 Do the members of the team decide by themselves…?

READ OUT Yes No DK Refusal

A - …on the division of tasks 1 2 8 9
B - …who will be head of the team 1 2 8 9

(MODIFIED)
Q27 Which of the following alternatives would best describe your skills in your own work?
SHOW CARD Q27 - READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY!

1 - I need further training to cope well with my duties

2 - My duties correspond well with my present skills
3 - I have the skills to cope with more demanding duties
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
9 - Refusal (spontaneous)

123
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

(MODIFIED)
Q28 Over the past 12 months, have you undergone any of the following types of training to
improve your skills or not?

IF YES,
indicate total
number of
READ OUT Yes No DK Refusal
days…
888 - DK
999 - Refusal
A - Training paid for or provided by your
employer, or by yourself if you are self- 1 2 8 9
employed …….

B - Training paid for by yourself (NEW) 1 2 8 9

…….
C - On-the-job training (co-workers, supervisors) 1 2 8 9
(NEW)

D - Other forms of on-site training and learning

1 2 8 9
(e.g. self-learning, on-line tutorials etc) (NEW)

E - Other (SPONTANEOUS) 1 2 8 9

(MODIFIED)
Q29 Over the past 12 months, have you or have you not, personally been subjected at work
to...?
READ OUT Yes No DK Refusal
A - threats of physical violence 1 2 8 9
B - physical violence from people from your workplace 1 2 8 9
C - physical violence from other people 1 2 8 9
D - bullying / harassment (MODIFIED) 1 2 8 9
E - sexual discrimination / discrimination linked to gender 1 2 8 9
(MODIFIED)

F - unwanted sexual attention 1 2 8 9

G - age discrimination 1 2 8 9
H - discrimination linked to nationality 1 2 8 9
I - discrimination linked to ethnic background 1 2 8 9
J - discrimination linked to religion 1 2 8 9
K - discrimination linked to disability 1 2 8 9
L - discrimination linked to sexual orientation 1 2 8 9

124
 Annex 6: Survey questionnaire

INTERVIEWER, QUESTIONS Q30 AND Q31 SHOULD BE ASKED TO EMPLOYEES ONLY!

IE. THOSE WHO ANSWERED “3” TO Q3A
(TREND 1995)
Q30 Over the past 12 months, have you, or not…?

READ OUT Yes No DK Refusal

A - Had a frank discussion with your boss about your work
1 2 8 9
performance?
B - Been consulted about changes in the organisation of work and /
1 2 8 9
or your working conditions?
C - Been subject to regular formal assessment of your work
1 2 8 9
performance? (NEW)
D - Discussed work-related problems with your boss? 1 2 8 9
E - Discussed work-related problems with an employee
1 2 8 9
representative?

(TREND)
Q31 Is your immediate boss a man or a woman?
1 - A man
2 - A woman
7 - Not applicable (spontaneous)
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
9 - Refusal (spontaneous)

ASK ALL!

(TREND)
Q32 Do you think your health or safety is at risk because of your work?
1 - Yes
2 – No
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
9 - Refusal (spontaneous)

(MODIFIED)
Q33 Does your work affect your health, or not?
1 – Yes --------- > CONTINUE WITH Q33A
2 – No -------------------------------------- > GO TO Q34a
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous) --- > GO TO Q34a
9 - Refusal (spontaneous) ------------- > GO TO Q34a

125
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

(MODIFIED)
Q33A How does it affect your health?
SHOW CARD Q33A - READ OUT – MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE!

Not
Mentioned DK Refusal
mentioned
A - hearing problems 1 2 8 9
B - problems with your vision 1 2 8 9
C - skin problems 1 2 8 9
D- backache 1 2 8 9
E - headaches 1 2 8 9
F - stomach ache 1 2 8 9
G - muscular pains in shoulders, neck and/or
1 2 8 9
upper/lower limbs (MODIFIED)
H - respiratory difficulties 1 2 8 9
I - heart disease 1 2 8 9
J - injury(ies) 1 2 8 9
K - stress 1 2 8 9
L - overall fatigue 1 2 8 9
M - sleeping problems 1 2 8 9
N - allergies 1 2 8 9
O - anxiety 1 2 8 9
P - irritability 1 2 8 9
Q - other (SPONTANEOUS) 1 2 8 9

(MODIFIED)
Q34A In your main paid job, over the past twelve months, have you been absent for any of the
following reasons?
READ OUT Yes No DK Refusal
A - Maternity or paternity leave 1 2 8 9
B - Educational leave 1 2 8 9
C - Family-related leave 1 2 8 9
D - Health problems 1 2 8 9
E - Other reasons 1 2 8 9

IF “YES”
CONTINUE
WITH Q34B

126
 Annex 6: Survey questionnaire

IF Q34A.D =“1” CONTINUE WITH Q34B, ALL OTHERS GO TO Q35.

Q34B Over the past 12 months how many days in total were you absent from work for
reasons of health problems?

Number of days:……………………
888 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
999 - Refusal (spontaneous)

(MODIFIED)
Q34C Of the days of absence indicated above, can you indicate how many days were
attributable to the following:
READ OUT Number of days DK Refusal

C1 - Accident(s) at work ……………… 8 9

C2 - Health problems caused by your work ……………… 8 9

ASK ONLY IF RESPONDENT IS BELOW 60 YEARS OF AGE.

(TREND)
Q35 Do you think you will be able to do the same job you are doing now when you are 60
years old?
1 - Yes, I think so
2 - No, I don’t think so
3 - I wouldn’t want to
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
9 - Refusal (spontaneous)

(TREND)
Q36 On the whole, are you very satisfied, satisfied, not very satisfied or not at all satisfied with
working conditions in your main paid job?
1 - Very satisfied
2 - Satisfied
3 - Not very satisfied
4 - Not at all satisfied
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
9 - Refusal (spontaneous)

127
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

(NEW)
Q37 How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements describing some
aspects of your job?
SHOW CARD Q37 WITH SCALE - READ OUT – ONE ANSWER PER LINE!

Neither
Strongly agree Strongly
READ OUT Agree Disagree DK Refusal
agree nor disagree
disagree

A - I might lose my job in the next 6 months 5 4 3 2 1 8 9

B - I am well paid for the work I do 5 4 3 2 1 8 9

C - My job offers good prospects for career

5 4 3 2 1 8 9
advancement

D - I feel myself ‘at home’ in this organisation 5 4 3 2 1 8 9

E - At work, I have opportunities to learn and

5 4 3 2 1 8 9
grow

F - I have very good friends at work 5 4 3 2 1 8 9

128
 Annex 6: Survey questionnaire

Demographics
(MODIFIED)
EF1 What is the highest level of education or training that you have successfully completed?

Note: LFS question; additional explanation of ISCED classification and correspondence to local
qualifications will be provided in each country
1 - No education
2 - Primary education(ISCED 1)
3 - Lower secondary education(ISCED 2)
4 - Upper secondary education (ISCED 3)
5 - Post-secondary including pre-vocational or vocational education but not tertiary (ISCED 4)
6 - Tertiary education – first level (ISCED 5)
7 - Tertiary education – advanced level (ISCED 6)
9 - Refusal (spontaneous)

(TREND)
EF3 Are you, in your household, the person who contributes most to the household income?
1 - Yes
2 - No
3 - Both equally (SPONTANEOUS)
8 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
9 - Refusal (spontaneous)

129
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

(MODIFIED)
EF4 How often are you involved in any of the following activities outside work
SHOW CARD EF4 WITH SCALE- READ OUT – ONE ANSWER PER LINE!

INTERVIEWER: IF FOR ANY OF THE ITEMS FROM ‘A’ TO ‘G’ IN

QUESTION EF4 THE ANSWER IS “everyday for 1 hour or more”,
CONTINUE WITH EF4.1.
(EF4A-EF4G=1 CONTINUE WITH EF4.1)

EF4.1. How many hours per day are you involved in any of the following activities outside
work?

EF4. EF4.1.
every second day

Once or twice a

Once or twice a

Once or twice a
Everyday for 1

Not applicable
for less than 1
hour or more

Everyday or

month

Never
Number
week
hour

Refusa
year

READ OUT DK
l
DK Ref.
of hours

A - Voluntary or
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 88 99
charitable activity ………
B - Political/trade union
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 88 99
activity ………
C - Caring for and
educating your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 88 99
children ………
D - Cooking and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 88 99
housework ………
E - Caring for
elderly/disabled 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 88 99
relatives ………
F - Taking a training or
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 88 99
education course ………
G - Sporting, cultural
or leisure activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 88 99
outside your home ………

130
 Annex 6: Survey questionnaire

(TREND)
EF5 Presently, what is on average your net monthly income from your main paid job?
SHOW CARD EF5 - READ OUT!

INTERVIEWER.: IF NECESSARY, EXPLAIN NET MONTHLY INCOME IS THE INCOME AT

ONE'S DISPOSAL AFTER TAXES AND SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS!

01 - A
02 - B
03 - C
04 - D
05 - E
06 - F
07 - G
08 - H
09 - I
10 - J
11 - K
12 - L
88 - DK/no opinion (spontaneous)
99 - Refusal (spontaneous)

INTERVIEWER: QUESTION EF6. SHOULD BE ASKED ONLY TO THOSE WHO ARE NOT
SELF-EMPLOYED!
IF Q3A =3 OR Q3A =4!
(MODIFIED)
EF6 What does your remuneration include?
SHOW CARD EF6 - READ OUT - MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE!

Not
Mentioned DK Refusal
mentioned
A - Basic fixed salary/wage 1 2 8 9
B - Piece rate or productivity payments 1 2 8 9
C - Extra payments for additional hours of
1 2 8 9
work/overtime
D - Extra payments compensating for bad or
1 2 8 9
dangerous working conditions
E - Extra payments compensating for Sunday work 1 2 8 9
F - Other extra payments 1 2 8 9
G - Payments based on the overall performance of
GOTO
the company (profit sharing scheme) where you 1 2 8 9
EF6G_1
work
H - Payments based on the overall performance of a GOTO
group 1 2 8 9
EF6H_1
I - Income from shares in the company your work
1 2 8 9
for
J - Advantages of other nature (for instance medical
1 2 8 9
services, access to shops, etc.)
K - Other (SPONTANEOUS) 1 2 8 9

131
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

If EF6.G=1

Thinking about the payments based on the overall performance of the company (profit
sharing scheme):
Yes No DK Refusal
EF6G_1 - Are the payments based on the
overall performance of the company
1 2 8 9
calculated according to a predefined
formula?
EF6G_2 - … do you receive these payments on
1 2 8 9
a regular basis?

If EF6.H=1

Thinking about the payments based on the overall performance of a group:

Yes No DK Refusal
EF6H_1 - Are the payments based on the
overall performance of a group calculated 1 2 8 9
according to a predefined formula?
EF6H_2 -… do you receive these payments on
1 2 8 9
a regular basis?

INTERVIEWER: END OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE UNLESS THE PERSON IS SELF-

EMPLOYED.
QUESTION EF7. SHOULD BE ASKED ONLY TO SELF-EMPLOYED PEOPLE!
IF Q3A =1 OR Q3A =2!

(MODIFIED)
EF7 What does your remuneration include?
SHOW CARD EF7- READ OUT - MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE!

Mentioned Not mentioned DK Refusal

A - Income from self-employment such as own
1 2 8 9
business, profession or farm
B - Payments based on the overall performance
of the company (profit sharing scheme) 1 2 8 9
where you work
C - Payments based on the overall performance
1 2 8 9
of a group
D - Income from shares in the company your
1 2 8 9
work for
E - Other (SPONTANEOUS) 1 2 8 9

132
 Annex 6: Survey questionnaire

If EF7.B=1

Thinking about the payments based on the overall performance of the company (profit
sharing scheme):
Yes No DK Refusal
EFB_1 - Are these payments based on the
overall performance of the company
1 2 8 9
calculated according to a predefined
formula?
EF7B_2 - … do you receive these payments on
1 2 8 9
a regular basis?

If EF7.C=1

Thinking about the payments based on the overall performance of a group:

Yes No DK Refusal
EF7C_1 - … are these payments calculated
1 2 8 9
according to a predefined formula?
EF7C_2- … do you receive these payments on
1 2 8 9
a regular basis?

P14 Thank you for participating in the fourth European Foundation Working Conditions
survey. The Foundation is planning to conduct a small number of follow-up interviews
(length: maximum one hour) with respondents over the coming six months.

Would you be willing to participate in such a follow-up Interviewers?

1 - Yes
2 - No

133
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Interview protocol

P.1 Date of the interview: Day: Month:

P.2 Time of the beginning of the interview: Hour: Minutes:

USE 24 HOUR CLOCK

P.3 Number of minutes the interview lasted: Minutes:

P4 Number of persons present during the interview, including interviewer.

1 - Two (Interviewer and respondent)
2 - Three
3 - Four
4 - Five or more

P5 Respondent cooperation
1 - Excellent
2 - Fair
3 - Average
4 - Bad

P6 Size of locality (LOCAL CODES)

P7 Region (LOCAL CODES)

P8 Postal code

P9 SAMPLE POINT NUMBER

P10 INTERVIEWER NUMBER

P11 WEIGHTING FACTOR

P12A Fixed telephone available in the household?

1 - Yes
2 - No

P12B Mobile telephone available in the household?

1 - Yes
2 - No

P13 Language of interview

134
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

Fourth European Working Conditions Survey

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2007 – VIII, 134 p. – 21 x 29.7 cm

ISBN 92-897-0974-X